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

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#61

Post by AndrewKemendo »

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…

Leadership is the most sacred responsibility, you literally have people’s lives in your hands. You get ZERO slack from me and you better be operating at your absolute best.

Why? It’s possible to do and to teach. I’ve had many such leaders and I’m consistently told I meet these standards so its imminently possible and achievable

There are so many amazing people and leaders in this world that there’s ZERO reason to give someone who has acted badly any additional opportunities to hurt or retard the progress of even one person

I expect to be held to the highest possible standard as a leader and hold leaders to standards of perfection

There are way too many amazing people have not been given enough opportunities for us to give second and third chances to people who have demonstrated that they cannot take care of their people as primary priorities

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#62

Post by cess11 »

CrazyStat wrote: post #56
cess11 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is about the situation where something is true. It does not apply in this case. Wallin has had every opportunity to "present a case for truth" but hasn't, and it's likely impossible to determine since the accusations were brought forward after a very long time. You should also know that Wallin has been harassing public servants because the authorities put down a dog that belonged to a friend of hers. Here's a bet…

TFA is about defamation being actionable even if the accusation is true. This is exactly the case in Sweden generally and in Wallin’s case specifically. This is the basis on which Wallin’s case was decided. It applies perfectly to Wallin’s case. I’m not sure why you are bringing up irrelevant facts to make Wallin look bad, so I won’t bother responding to them.

OK, and how do you know that Wallin's accusations are true? Would you mind going to the swedish authorities and present your evidence to them?

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#63

Post by rsynnott »

klyrs wrote: post #58
rsynnott wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you seeing being punished for criticising organisations? In general it’s extremely difficult for an organisation to sue an individual for defamation.

I had the same question. The closest I'm aware of isn't organizations, but protected classes who can sue individuals for hate speech e.g. inciting violence against them.

Even that is usually, in most jurisdictions, far more difficult than an individual sueing for defamation. Incitement to violence is a very high bar; in practice people (arseholes) are free to lie about protected classes pretty much as much as they like. And they do.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#64

Post by CrazyStat »

cess11 wrote: post #62
CrazyStat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is about defamation being actionable even if the accusation is true. This is exactly the case in Sweden generally and in Wallin’s case specifically. This is the basis on which Wallin’s case was decided. It applies perfectly to Wallin’s case. I’m not sure why you are bringing up irrelevant facts to make Wallin look bad, so I won’t bother responding to them.

OK, and how do you know that Wallin's accusations are true? Would you mind going to the swedish authorities and present your evidence to them?

It doesn’t matter whether Wallin’s accusations are true. The court said so when they convicted her without considering truth. This is the current state of Swedish defamation law and the policy for which TFA is arguing.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#65

Post by graemep »

lupire wrote: post #18
impossiblefork wrote: post #6

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.

That is a strawman. What you are describing is an authoritarian theocracy.

While such things exist, they are not synonymous with religion.

It also depends on what you mean by verifiable. If someone has a religious belief they are likely to think they have reason for what they believe. This is true of any contested belief in any field.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#66

Post by arlort »

cess11 wrote: post #54
arlort wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU charter of fundamental rights does not apply to national law And the echr gives a lot of leeway to national laws

ECHR is law in Sweden and the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR. This has consequences for when defamation is punishable. Edit: And the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court.

> the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR

Yes, but the decision of what is contrary to the ECHR is made by the ECHR and they always give pretty ample margins to member states. The ECHR is supposed to be a lower limit on what protections are given. Not the ultimate authority on what protections should be given.

Maybe they'd rule these cases in violation, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't

> the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court

No, actually it's completely different from the ECHR. The ECHR is a treaty which applies to all actions and legislation of the parties.

The EU charter is specifically targeted at EU law. It is a protection against interference originating in EU law and its scope applies only to EU law and its implementation.

So if your rights are violated due to an EU regulation you have recourse because of the charter, if they are violated due to how your country implemented an EU directive you have recourse, and if they are violated by your country because of how they are enforcing some legislation you have recourse.

However the member states themselves could pass their own law completely violating these principles and as long as it doesn't infringe on EU competences you'd have no recourse (well, you'd still likely have the ECHR)

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#67

Post by cess11 »

CrazyStat wrote: post #64
cess11 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, and how do you know that Wallin's accusations are true? Would you mind going to the swedish authorities and present your evidence to them?

It doesn’t matter whether Wallin’s accusations are true. The court said so when they convicted her without considering truth. This is the current state of Swedish defamation law and the policy for which TFA is arguing.

TFA argues that the harm done by defamation through the spreading of true statements should be punishable.

Cases where the truth of the defamatory statements cannot be determined are out of scope. However, such harm would reasonably be covered by the same line of argument.

In some situations swedish courts have to consider the truth of the statements in defamation cases. The regulation is much more sophisticated and detailed than you seem to think.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#68

Post by worthless-trash »

shadowgovt wrote: post #48
worthless-trash wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can historically prove a misdeed, but how do you prove atonement other than a prison sentence ? Even then, how does that prove change ?

> but how do you prove atonement Accumulated years of not repeating the mistake. And people will disagree on how many are necessary.

> Accumulated years of not repeating the mistake.

> And people will disagree on how many are necessary.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there is unwritten large variance timeframes that people "need to have met" for atonement, it isnt an easy solution.

The radiation continues to affect, long after the nuclear explosion.

Re: True Defamation [pdf]

#69

Post by Kapto »

arh68 wrote: post #52

Thoroughly wordy; this could have been 3 pages. Deeply unconvincing, to boot. (am I defaming the author by saying their writing sucks?) I'm more convinced "true defamation" is not defamation at all. > as long as we understand the “opinions” involved in people’s reputation to be something formed more or less involuntarily as a consequence of receiving information being circulated about them. What? Involuntarily? My op…

1. Opinions are involuntary. You see rain, you don't decide to think it's raining. You just think it.

2. The piece doesn't say rep is property, just like property in 2 ways (no others).

3. Not wrong to damage stuff you have a strong interest in, only stuff that's also an "aspect of yourself," how the paper defines this. Doesn't apply to Taylor case.

Agree, too long and wordy. But still worth getting right what it says before hating on/disagreeing because of what it doesn't.

Post reply on HN