Libel Laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:05:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Libel Laws
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Should slander and libel laws tend to be more strict or more lenient?
#1
More strict
 
#2
More lenient
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 45

Author Topic: Libel Laws  (Read 3575 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 25, 2015, 11:15:05 PM »

     Inspired by discussion in a recent topic, what would be preferable to you? Stricter laws on slander and libel (like those in England) or more lenient ones (like those in the United States)?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2015, 11:44:32 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2015, 11:04:52 AM by Senator TNF »

There should be none.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2015, 12:37:39 AM »

Definitely more like those in England. American free speech laws are way too permissive.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2015, 06:43:16 AM »

Abolished.
Logged
Sopranos Republican
Matt from VT
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,175
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.03, S: -8.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2015, 09:51:01 AM »

Completely abolished.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2015, 10:55:24 AM »

I think that whether libel laws are a good or bad idea depend on the place and judicial system. So do I trust the American judicial system to administrate British style libel laws; No. Do I trust the British judicial system to administrate them; Yes.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2015, 10:58:24 AM »

Definitely more like those in England. American free speech laws are way too permissive.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2015, 11:08:55 AM »

Definitely more like those in England. American free speech laws are way too permissive.

I need the government to protect me from mean people!
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2015, 07:09:43 PM »

British libel laws are trash, but that's mainly because they exist to serve the rich and lawyered. They don't for example, help innocent poor people being attacked by media empires and their hired goons; but they will help secretive organisations of quacks clamp down on dissent.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2015, 07:16:20 PM »

I think that whether libel laws are a good or bad idea depend on the place and judicial system. So do I trust the American judicial system to administrate British style libel laws; No. Do I trust the British judicial system to administrate them; Yes.

     But the question I am getting at is, do you have a personal preference towards the strictness of laws that exist? I and some others who have posted in this thread have indicated a preference towards few if any laws against libel. Think about what kind of libel laws would exist in your dream country, where you could set up the judicial system however you liked.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2015, 04:26:55 AM »


Calling a teacher a paedophile can ruin his or her life. Should that really be legal?
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2015, 05:35:23 AM »

I think that whether libel laws are a good or bad idea depend on the place and judicial system. So do I trust the American judicial system to administrate British style libel laws; No. Do I trust the British judicial system to administrate them; Yes.

     But the question I am getting at is, do you have a personal preference towards the strictness of laws that exist? I and some others who have posted in this thread have indicated a preference towards few if any laws against libel. Think about what kind of libel laws would exist in your dream country, where you could set up the judicial system however you liked.

In my dream country there wouldn't be lawyers or a judicial system;p. But let's take a more reasonablee approach than that. Yes I would like for libel laws to be relative strict so I fall in the pro-British category.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,474
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2015, 01:53:07 PM »

More lenient, but not completely abolished.  Ruining a teachers life by falsely accusing that teacher of pedophilia shouldn't be allowed.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2015, 02:03:30 PM »

British libel laws are trash, but that's mainly because they exist to serve the rich and lawyered. They don't for example, help innocent poor people being attacked by media empires and their hired goons; but they will help secretive organisations of quacks clamp down on dissent.

But is there really much of a way to make it work any differently, in practice? The rich and lawyered are likely to always exist, and always be able to take advantage of those laws more than the less privileged.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2015, 02:35:39 PM »

SCOTUS has fashioned an excellent balance with respect to libel laws between the right of freedom of speech, and the right to not have one's reputation unfairly traduced. Britain goes to far in leashing freedom of speech in my view.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2015, 02:38:15 PM »

More lenient. The British libel laws are horrible.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2015, 02:39:41 PM »

British libel laws are trash, but that's mainly because they exist to serve the rich and lawyered. They don't for example, help innocent poor people being attacked by media empires and their hired goons; but they will help secretive organisations of quacks clamp down on dissent.

But is there really much of a way to make it work any differently, in practice? The rich and lawyered are likely to always exist, and always be able to take advantage of those laws more than the less privileged.

Alas that is the risk, but I would prefer to find ways to make the justice system less reliant on those flush with $$$$; rather than just giving up protecting the innocent from public defamation.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2015, 03:11:21 PM »

British libel laws are trash, but that's mainly because they exist to serve the rich and lawyered. They don't for example, help innocent poor people being attacked by media empires and their hired goons; but they will help secretive organisations of quacks clamp down on dissent.

But is there really much of a way to make it work any differently, in practice? The rich and lawyered are likely to always exist, and always be able to take advantage of those laws more than the less privileged.

Alas that is the risk, but I would prefer to find ways to make the justice system less reliant on those flush with $$$$; rather than just giving up protecting the innocent from public defamation.

Lawyers should be made into civil servants paid by the State on the basis of an assessment of their talent (but within reasonable limits) and randomly assigned to a defendant (although with conscience objection clauses).
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2015, 03:22:22 PM »

British libel laws are trash, but that's mainly because they exist to serve the rich and lawyered. They don't for example, help innocent poor people being attacked by media empires and their hired goons; but they will help secretive organisations of quacks clamp down on dissent.

But is there really much of a way to make it work any differently, in practice? The rich and lawyered are likely to always exist, and always be able to take advantage of those laws more than the less privileged.

Alas that is the risk, but I would prefer to find ways to make the justice system less reliant on those flush with $$$$; rather than just giving up protecting the innocent from public defamation.

Lawyers should be made into civil servants paid by the State on the basis of an assessment of their talent (but within reasonable limits) and randomly assigned to a defendant (although with conscience objection clauses).

Yes, I've often thought that would be good (or otherwise a cap should be placed on legal fees), but not knowing the ins and outs of the legal profession i don't know whether such actions would have unforeseen consequences.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2015, 04:37:52 PM »

The legal profession should probably be socialized, yeah. I don't really know how you'd accomplish that and obviously it would be politically impossible, but any legal system where rich people are able to buy more/better legal representation than poor people is incompatible with most basic ideas of liberal democracy.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2015, 09:33:56 PM »

The legal profession should probably be socialized, yeah. I don't really know how you'd accomplish that and obviously it would be politically impossible, but any legal system where rich people are able to buy more/better legal representation than poor people is incompatible with most basic ideas of liberal democracy.

Yeah, I'm surprised there is no one pushing for this more. It seems rather obvious to me.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2015, 10:07:06 PM »

The legal profession should probably be socialized, yeah. I don't really know how you'd accomplish that and obviously it would be politically impossible, but any legal system where rich people are able to buy more/better legal representation than poor people is incompatible with most basic ideas of liberal democracy.

Yeah, I'm surprised there is no one pushing for this more. It seems rather obvious to me.

Right-wingers hate lawyers but they also hate socialism. And left-wingers love socialism but also love lawyers. So it's never gonna happen.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2015, 03:12:21 AM »


Calling a teacher a paedophile can ruin his or her life. Should that really be legal?

     Usually it would lead to a criminal investigation, with the issue being put aside if the teacher is found in the clear. Being falsely accused of criminal activity can ruin someone's life in many different contexts. Should we prosecute the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case for slandering the players?
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2015, 08:23:21 AM »

Lenient but not abolished. Libel is a violent manipulation of capital that is quite capable of restricting the extent to which a person can make practical use of their rights and liberties in pursuit of meaningful, long-term satisfaction with life. Libel in a well-arranged socialist system would be less threatening to the victim, however, as they would still have secure access to all their basic material needs regardless of whether the stigma wrongly assigned to them by other people severely impacts their ability to get income. What holds me back from wanting these laws strengthened is concern as to how corrupt, powerful interests could abuse them.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2015, 11:16:09 PM »

This thread is potentially libelous and should be treated as such by the relevant authorities.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.