Popular Feminist Takes 'The Red Pill' : Beds White Supremacist

[Ajidica]

Courts don't deal in "belief". She'd have to prove that she was denied the job specifically because of that lie. And since it's highly unlikely any company would admit to that or keep any evidence of it for fear of being sued themselves, it is unlikely she'd be able to satisfy the burden of proof.

Well, she has to believe it to take a company to court over it. It is sort of how complaints work. A person believes another entity harmed them and files suit. Evidence is acquired and presented during the course of trial to for the trier of fact to determine if your mother's belief Warren Buffet made knowingly false defamatory statements about her is more likely than not to be the true account of events.

Sure, that's technically correct, but the very small number of defamation, libel, and slander cases that actually result in a judgement for the plaintiff should tell you just how hard it is to actually meet the burden of proof. As it stands (at least in the US) it is simply way too easy to defend against an accusation of libel, defamation, or slander. And that's the way it should be.

Wait, so are you saying libel laws should exist?

Yes. In fact, there was another thread (don't remember which one) where libel was being discussed and I stated that I am against such laws.

 

[Commodore]

Wait, so are you saying libel laws should exist?

I just recognize that those laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so I'm expressing my approval at the fact that the current system makes those laws extremely difficult to enforce.

 

[Ajidica]

So, still don't believe your mother should not have even the potential for legal recourse if Warren Buffet decides to make willfully negligent, defamatory, and false statements about your mother which damages her reputation?

 

[Commodore]

So, still don't believe your mother should not have even the potential for legal recourse if Warren Buffet decides to make willfully negligent, defamatory, and false statements about your mother which damages her reputation?

Pretty much. Damage to reputation can't be quantified, and thus should not be something that can be claimed in any civil case.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pretty much. Damage to reputation can't be quantified, and thus should not be something that can be claimed in any civil case.

I mean this is all well and good, but I really think you should stop avoiding the question and clearly state your opinion on libel law.

 

[Commodore]

I mean this is all well and good, but I really think you should stop avoiding the question and clearly state your opinion on libel law.

I have. Several times.

 

[Ajidica]

Pretty much. Damage to reputation can't be quantified, and thus should not be something that can be claimed in any civil case.

There are any number of damages that "can't be quantified", but civil cases regarding those damages still go ahead. How do you quantify the emotion damage and trauma of a dead child (which a civil court previously determined another party bears liability for)?

That commodore doesn't believe damage to reputation cant be quantified doesn't mean your mother should lack the possibility of legal recourse if Warren Buffet makes willfully negligent, false, and defamatory statements about her.

 

[Commodore]

which a civil court previously determined another party bears liability for

That's the difference right there. Those damages you refer to are secondary effects of another action that did create quantifiable damage. When it comes to libel or defamation, the whole thing is based on unquantifiable damage. I'm not too big a fan of awarding judgements for things that are unquantifiable because if something is unquantifiable then there is no way of knowing whether or not the judgement was appropriate to the amount of damage caused. Unquatifiable damage should be a criminal matter not a civil one, and I'm definitely not for locking people up simply for spreading rumors about someone.

 

[Hygro]

because of some minor differences in opinion on free speech.

Minor differences.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah. Not sure about that. Punishing people for speech short of incitment is a fairly major difference in the tolerance of noise.

 

[Hygro]

As long as America is #1 we don't have to worry about Nazis taking over. That's some stuff thirsty nations trying to shortcut do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As long as America is #1 we don't have to worry about Nazis taking over. That's some stuff thirsty nations trying to shortcut do.

Make America Great Again = We're a thirsty nation trying to shortcut back to "greatness"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I have. Several times.

Yes I was being sarcastic.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Equating "free speech" with "unregulated expression" is just stupid and reductive. No one should have the right to go up to a seven year old girl and whisper in her ear, in detail, how he/she is going to rape and torture her. "Free speech" must be limited to some degree, because words can do serious damage.

I love how Commodore just keeps retorting to "hurt feelings are not quantifiable damage", but suddenly, when the situation changes and some sick-o is trying to give your daughter a trauma and ruin her sexuality for the rest of her adult life, "free speech" becomes the right to hurt anyone, anywhere, under any circumstance.

Obviously this example is highly specific and something that, at best, would occur rarely. But it's something that would go unpunished if "free speech" was not policed at all.

 

[Farm Boy]

That example, fairly certain, would fall under specific threats and offensive speech not protected in USA #1.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I was merely trying to point out that the sort of completely unregulated free speech that Berzerker is advocating for will inevitable result in undesirable scenarios like the one I constructed. I do know that neither threats nor libel are "allowed" in most "developed countries" and that's for a good reason.

 

[Berzerker]

not me