True Defamation [pdf]
journaloffreespeechlaw.org
True Defamation [pdf]
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#2TFA is difficult to read; because the author, having argued that "defamation" should include true but harmful remarks, proceeds to use the word "defame" as if that term included truthful utterances.
E.g., concerning Tilley: "Yet he was indisputably defamed by it". Yes, his reputation was harmed, so arguably he was defamed by 17thC standards; but "indisputably" is simply wrong on the present definition of "defame". If he was indeed a bad manager, then having that information in the public domain seems to be a social good; bad managers harm all of us, and this guy was trading on his reputation as a good one.
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#3This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible.
Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows and which one feels are important is a tremendous imposition.
Ones reputation isn't like ones body parts-- but the truthful speech of the person who would speak against you, that's the true body part.
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#4The book excerpt is very interesting because it focuses on private individuals defamed by groups. It argues that bringing up true statements about these private individuals that occurred a long time ago is also defamation.
We see the opposite in public discourse. Mobbing private individuals is perfectly fine, criticizing organizations or their leaders (public figures) is punished harshly.
Organizations destroying the reputation of private individuals is also perfectly fine. Everyone believes the leaders and corrections or hints that the leaders are doubtful characters themselves are suppressed.
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#5This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible . Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows and which one feels are important is a tremendous imposition. Ones reputation isn't like ones body parts-- but the truthful speech of the person who would speak against you, that's the true body part.
> This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible.
I’d say it has its ups and downs.
One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings.
It’s also worth noting that “true defamation” is only legal when you can prove it’s true. So it’s not really a freedom to speak truth, just a freedom to speak what is provably true.
I think the main problem with the Swedish law is that it places too little emphasis on the intent behind the “true definition”. For example I think it’s wrong to “defame” someone in order to gain control over a company, in some cases even if the statements are true. But I think it’s a very different thing to indite someone for telling their life story in a book, because a central part of their life is that they were the victim of a crime (see e.g. the chancellor of justice’s prosecution of Cissi Wallin for her autobiography).
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#6This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible . Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows and which one feels are important is a tremendous imposition. Ones reputation isn't like ones body parts-- but the truthful speech of the person who would speak against you, that's the true body part.
> This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. I’d say it has its ups and downs. One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. It’s also worth noting that “true defamation” is only legal when you can prove it’s true. So it’s not really a freedom to speak truth, just a freedom to speak what is provably true. I think the main prob…
>One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings.
That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression.
I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation.
The primacy of freedom of speech must central, and I think we should think as if though everyone were psychologically very strongly compelled to speak about what he does and that we should have the presumption that he speaks honestly.
Truth is also special, and rightly holds a special place in people's psychology and in religion.
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#7I've only skimmed the paper, but I didn't find anything that would clearly distinguish between things that harm someone's reputation in a justifiable way, and things that harm it in an unjustifiable way. For example, if the CEO of a startup has previously been convicted multiple times for financial fraud, it would both hurt their reputation and be beneficial to potential investors to know this. But what if it's only one conviction? And a long time ago? It seems like the whole argument comes down to drawing this line, but I didn't see any real attempt to do so.
A lot of the impulse for this paper seems to be based around "the [claimed] right to a fresh start":
Moreover, if reputational interest is understood as a presumption of good standing, then there is another reason to prohibit true defamation, one that depends upon the presumption, namely what might be called the right to a fresh start. By “a fresh start,” I mean the right to have a misdeed from long ago eventually cease to be part of one’s current reputation, so that it ceases to have any impact on one’s life. ... The interest in a fresh start stands against this veritable life sentence—an interest, instead, in being treated as a new person, no longer associated with a misdeed from long ago.
Yes, if you grant that such a right exists, it might make sense to make it illegal to point out true facts about someone's past. And I can easily see why many individuals would want a "fresh start". But does society as a whole benefit from having such a right? I'm far from convinced that it should be any sort of universal right, and don't see any good way to define when it's applicable and when it's not. Are there good solutions for this problem somewhere?
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. I’d say it has its ups and downs. One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. It’s also worth noting that “true defamation” is only legal when you can prove it’s true. So it’s not really a freedom to speak truth, just a freedom to speak what is provably true. I think the main prob…
>One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression. I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation. The primacy of freedom of speech…
I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying.
For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have to prove you are not a rapist, under a balance of probabilities test. This is much harder than defending yourself from a criminal indictment, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor / victim. So what do you do? If you do go to court and fail to prove your innocence then there’s now an official document that essentially states you are a rapist.
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#9This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible . Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows and which one feels are important is a tremendous imposition. Ones reputation isn't like ones body parts-- but the truthful speech of the person who would speak against you, that's the true body part.
Can you give five examples?
Re: True Defamation [pdf]
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression. I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation. The primacy of freedom of speech…
I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying. For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have t…
No. You only need to prove that the other party recklessly claimed it without evidence.
The defence is the truth of the statement, or at least in its non-recklessness and that is provided by the party that is sued.
The American approach on this clearly works. There's a recent US case of defamation some dead children with clearly excessive fines, but that's also in the other direction.