Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Dropped My Old Views on Slander

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 7:18:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes. I concede the issue. Even when in my first thread, I initially acknowledged that it would be wrong to enforce laws against it, despite the fact that I was against it.

This argument did it for me:

At 4/30/2010 2:58:41 PM, theLwerd wrote:
...? You said that if someone accused a teacher of being a child molester, said teacher's reputation would be ruined and he would be fired. I'm saying that if he were fired, the principal (or whomever) would be at fault for automatically accepting the insult without facts or looking into it. If it were true, it's not slander/libel. If it were false or unable to be proven, the employer has no reason to fire them. Innocent until proven guilty. So I don't really see what the issue is.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 7:26:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 7:18:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/30/2010 2:58:41 PM, theLwerd wrote:
...? You said that if someone accused a teacher of being a child molester, said teacher's reputation would be ruined and he would be fired. I'm saying that if he were fired, the principal (or whomever) would be at fault for automatically accepting the insult without facts or looking into it.

It is completely irrelevant whether or not the principal is at fault. All that matters is that the teacher lost his job because of the slander, and his reputation was ruined.

If it were true, it's not slander/libel.

Obviously.

If it were false or unable to be proven, the employer has no reason to fire them. Innocent until proven guilty. So I don't really see what the issue is.

Uh, ok. Well the employer might fire the teacher to avoid bad publicity and parent outrage.

---

I posted this in the last thread.

At 4/30/2010 3:02:29 PM, Nags wrote:
@Panda and L, You're missing the whole point of defamation:

Intent.

If the New York Times publishes a story that Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast, and the New York Times knows that Barack Obama does not rape and eat little children for breakfast, then the New York Times is guilty of libel.

If the New York Times publishes a story that Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast, and the New York Times is given this information from inaccurate reporting, then the New York Times is not guilty of libel.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2010 3:38:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I posted this in the last thread.

At 4/30/2010 3:02:29 PM, Nags wrote:
@Panda and L, You're missing the whole point of defamation:

Intent.

If the New York Times publishes a story that Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast, and the New York Times knows that Barack Obama does not rape and eat little children for breakfast, then the New York Times is guilty of libel.

If the New York Times publishes a story that Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast, and the New York Times is given this information from inaccurate reporting, then the New York Times is not guilty of libel.

This is not quite true. In the latter, of the NYT reported that Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast, the NYT would still be guilty of libel. If they report that "sources allege Barack Obama rapes and eats little children for breakfast," then they aren't -- because they are reporting that someone reported it.

This is why you /always,/ no matter how incontrovertible it seems that person X committed crime Y, newspapers use the word "alleged" prior to conviction.