Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

True Defamation [pdf]

journaloffreespeechlaw.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#11

Post by lukan »

nkurz wrote: post #7

I'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…

"Are there good solutions for this problem somewhere?"

There are no simple solutions to a problem this complex as human trust.

But I really do not see, how I can I trust humans more, if it would be illegal to say true things about the past.

Truth may never be hidden, if you want real trust. And there need to be more consequences of lying.

And people should accept, that people change. If someone was stupid in their teenage years 10 years ago, then most can actually assume, that they changed a bit.

But if someone was lying and stealing 20 years ago and is caught doing it again yesterday, I will probably also not trust this guy in 2 years, unless he can convincingly explain why and how he changed.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#12

Post by amadeuspagel »

> In this way, one’s reputation, like one’s hand or one’s home, is an aspect or extension of oneself, at least insofar as damage to it suffices as a harm to oneself, quite apart from any further impact it might have. It is, in other words, inapt to ask, “Your reputation may have suffered, but how exactly did that hurt you?” There is also another important way reputation is an aspect of oneself: It is not primarily constituted by the voluntary acts of other people, like a store owner’s share of the consumer market or a school board candidate’s share of the electorate. Unlike purchases or votes, the appraisals of others that constitute their reputation do not reflect the appraisers’ choices—some decision to begin viewing the person this way or that—but are instead generally formed as natural, passive consequences of learning the relevant information.

If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? I can only know about my reputation from the voluntary acts of other people. These actions may be more or less conscious, just like the choice to buy from a store or to vote for a candidate, but they are not "a passive consequence of learning the relevant information".

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#13

Post by impossiblefork »

cess11 wrote: post #9
impossiblefork wrote: post #3

This 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?

There aren't five cases in the Swedish court system where this has been relevant.

There's only really been two cases. One is a case where a Swedish Christian Democrat politician brought up what the opposing council in a certain dispute had done previously and was convicted of defamation for this. Another is a case where a Swedish journalist was convicted of defamation for that he brought up that a guy who was suing people for all sorts of rubbish was himself criminal-adjacent in that he had been prosecuted for animal cruelty, but had remained outside the country until the state of limitations came into effect.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#14

Post by agolio »

impossiblefork wrote: post #13
cess11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give five examples?

There aren't five cases in the Swedish court system where this has been relevant. There's only really been two cases. One is a case where a Swedish Christian Democrat politician brought up what the opposing council in a certain dispute had done previously and was convicted of defamation for this. Another is a case where a Swedish journalist was convicted of defamation for that he brought up that a guy who was suing p…

I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#15

Post by lupire »

nkurz wrote: post #7

I'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…

If, say, a fraud conviction 20 years ago should morally not preclude running a business[0], then the simple solution is to require statements of long past crimes to include the date range. That handles the concern about misleading people not thinking it was recent. If you believe in fresh starts, "Bob was convicted of fraud in 2003" is not defamatory. It's redemptive.

If the motivation for banning facts is to prevent people from making non-PC judgments based on those facts, then what to do about making true statements like "Bob is Jewish", or "Vic's legal name is Vikram", which might cause discrimination? Is that True Defamation?

BTW, True Defamation is illegal even in the modern day, in UK, if the the defendant can prove truth sufficiently, with some recent protection since 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

In general, making laws to prevent people from doing reasonable things that cause other people to misbehave, is dangerous ground. Usually better to intervene at the stage of the actual misbehavior.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#16

Post by boolemancer »

nkurz wrote: post #7

I'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…

Seems like the best way for somebody to get over a bad thing that they did in their past is to be forthright in acknowledging that they did the bad thing, and show through their actions how they've become a better person.

In other words, accept responsibility and earn back your reputation.

Hiding the truth seems like the exact opposite of that.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#17

Post by lupire »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #12

> In this way, one’s reputation, like one’s hand or one’s home, is an aspect or extension of oneself, at least insofar as damage to it suffices as a harm to oneself, quite apart from any further impact it might have. It is, in other words, inapt to ask, “Your reputation may have suffered, but how exactly did that hurt you?” There is also another important way reputation is an aspect of oneself: It is not primarily co…

The point is that people might unconsciously harm you, in ways you can't identify.

If I set a fire and you die from lung cancer caused by the smoke, I hurt you, even if neither of us knows it.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#18

Post by lupire »

impossiblefork wrote: post #6
bjornsing wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

Religion? Religion is the one area of the life where truth s independent of proof. Some would say that truth without proof is my truth at all.

Religion says that A's unverifiable statements are sacred and not allowed to be criticized, but B's are heretical and punished.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#19

Post by iandanforth »

One point not covered but clearly understood tacitly by the author is that the representativeness of a fact degrades over time. While it may be true that someone did something 10 years ago, that fact may not be a true reflection of their character today. Thus a statement may be technically true, but practically false, and thus should be considered defamatory (under the modern American definition).

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#20

Post by MarkusQ »

denton-scratch wrote: post #2

TFA 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…

It would be even harder to read if the author didn't do that.

We are being invited to consider a premise (i.e. presume that it is true) and explore the consequences. At any point, we can choose to disagree with this premise, but at least we understand it.

Imagine instead if the author, after inviting us to accept the premise, proceeded to write as if we were to assume the premise were false. It would be much harder to understand what they were proposing or why they even wrote the piece in the first place. At best it would be a maze of obligatory qualifiers and nested hypotheticals.

Post reply on HN