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

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#21

Post by bjornsing »

impossiblefork wrote: post #10
bjornsing wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, I think you’re oversimplifying. There’s nothing reckless about accusing someone of rape, even if the only proof you have is your own testimony under oath.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#22

Post by blantonl »

I think what this paper attempts to argue, distilled to its simplest form, is that revenge is not justified.

The act of tearing someone down purposefully, either with facts or non-truths, is almost always an act of revenge. Someone felt wronged by someone's current or previous actions, and they move to "take revenge." This paper essentially argues that no one is entitled to revenge.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#23

Post by quotemstr »

blantonl wrote: post #22

I think what this paper attempts to argue, distilled to its simplest form, is that revenge is not justified. The act of tearing someone down purposefully, either with facts or non-truths, is almost always an act of revenge. Someone felt wronged by someone's current or previous actions, and they move to "take revenge." This paper essentially argues that no one is entitled to revenge.

Revenge or not, it should never be illegal to speak the truth of a matter, on any subject. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. Withholding true facts only worsens our models of reality.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#24

Post by cess11 »

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…

OK, so it's not actually a big problem. I can't identify the first case, the second sounds like Lamotte, and if so, it's not a journalist but a YouTube beggar catering to a neofascist audience.

To me it's obvious that you either ignore or is unaware of constitutional limitations of the criminalisation of defamation, notably in ECHR and three constitutional laws. If you spread defamatory 'truths' in a free speech setting where the victim can defend themselves you'll easily get away with it.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#25

Post by DougBTX »

boolemancer wrote: post #16
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.

> Hiding the truth seems like the exact opposite of that.

It seems like “true defamation” could be a lie of omission. If someone harps on about a past misdeed but omits N years of atonement, that’s misleading, even if true.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#26

Post by CrazyStat »

cess11 wrote: post #24
impossiblefork wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, so it's not actually a big problem. I can't identify the first case, the second sounds like Lamotte, and if so, it's not a journalist but a YouTube beggar catering to a neofascist audience. To me it's obvious that you either ignore or is unaware of constitutional limitations of the criminalisation of defamation, notably in ECHR and three constitutional laws. If you spread defamatory 'truths' in a free speech sett…

A law can have chilling consequences even if it is not often prosecuted.

The New York Times had an article a few years ago about Swedish defamation law in the context of the #MeToo movement, so there’s another example for you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi...

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#27

Post by singleshot_ »

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…

This stands as an example of the opposite of a universal right. Denying me to true knowledge that someone is awful is abuse. I think we can infer the author knows some real jerks.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#28

Post by hilbert42 »

Whatever one's views on defamation before coming Helmreich's well-researched and well-argued paper it's highly doubtful that afterwards their views will remain unaltered.

Let's assume that if beforehand one agreed wholeheartedly with Helmreich's position—which I'd suggest would be unlikely—then I'd posit this paper would further nuance their views. This is an excellent and authoritative paper, and I have learned much about a subject of which I thought I already had reasonable knowledge.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#29

Post by cess11 »

CrazyStat wrote: post #26
cess11 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so it's not actually a big problem. I can't identify the first case, the second sounds like Lamotte, and if so, it's not a journalist but a YouTube beggar catering to a neofascist audience. To me it's obvious that you either ignore or is unaware of constitutional limitations of the criminalisation of defamation, notably in ECHR and three constitutional laws. If you spread defamatory 'truths' in a free speech sett…

A law can have chilling consequences even if it is not often prosecuted. The New York Times had an article a few years ago about Swedish defamation law in the context of the #MeToo movement, so there’s another example for you. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi...

Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant.

And it's not an article, it's an opinion piece by a person who also claims to have been mistreated by Virtanen and helped spread Wallin's statements about him: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att...

Edit: Should probably add that there is very little chilling from our defamation criminalisation, it's commonly used in far right political activism for example. The Lamotte case is an outlier where I think the victim didn't engage the cops and ran his own civil case against him instead.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#30

Post by CrazyStat »

cess11 wrote: post #29
CrazyStat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A law can have chilling consequences even if it is not often prosecuted. The New York Times had an article a few years ago about Swedish defamation law in the context of the #MeToo movement, so there’s another example for you. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi...

Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant. And it's not an article, it's an opinion piece by a person who also claims to have been mistreated by Virtanen and helped spread Wallin's statements about him: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att... Edit: Should probably add that there is very little chilling from our def…

> Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant.

No, it's absolutely not irrelevant. The court refused to consider whether Wallin's claims were true because it held that they would be criminally defamatory even if true.

> In this case, despite Mr. Virtanen’s being one of the highest-profile writers at the country’s largest newspaper, the court concluded that he was not enough of a public figure to justify public interest in his personal conduct. Ms. Wallin’s posts, in other words, were not justifiable, and as a result, it didn’t matter whether her account of their encounter was accurate. “The court will not review whether the statements were true,” the verdict read.

In a country where truth is a defense against defamation charges, like the US, the court would have had to have considered whether Wallin's claims were true. Because Sweden does not consider truth a defense Wallin didn't even have the opportunity to present a case for truth.

Post reply on HN