31–40 of 69 posts
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).
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…
Imagine I’m considering marrying someone. Do I really not have an interest in knowing their past misdeeds?
A better way is to have strict rules on what you can take into account for certain types of decisions: renting a house, hiring an employee, offering an insurance policy.
But there is no right have the world forget your misdeeds.
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.
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…
I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
And the echr gives a lot of leeway to national laws
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 te…
The problem to be solved here is not the liability owed by the reporter of the truth, but rather the way in which our reptilian brains fail to balance that truth against an undoubtedly bigger picture.
Earlier 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…
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.
The 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 th…
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…
I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
I believe that the government would have lost if this had been brought to the ECHR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
(The only exceptions to this should be when you contractually sign away this right, such as a lawyer who enters into a contract with a client and cannot give all their private correspondence to the opposition. Or a soldier who signs away his right to speak freely about troop movements, etc.)