Why libel and slander are not a violation of ones rights

[Henrin]

It is seen by the government that when one publishes a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation that it is speech not protected under the first amendment. It is also seen by the government that when one makes a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation that is again not protected speech under the first amendment. What they’re arguing in both cases is that one has a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.

However, in order to have a right to your own reputation, you would have to own it, but in order to own your reputation you would need to have ownership of other peoples feelings and their attitudes towards you, which would mean you need to have ownership over other peoples minds. Since no one can possibly have ownership of another persons mind, as we all have ownership of our person, we clearly can not have a right to our own reputation.

While it is true that when people making false statements that are harmful to how people think of you, which can affect such things as how they interact with you personally, or your success in life, it can not be argued for the reasons that I have stated that there is any right to stop people from making false statements about you, and therefore, there is no justifiable reason to keep such behavior illegal.

 

[SCitizen]

I disagree -- libel and slander can be used as a tactic to punish and censor people for unpopular opinions.

 

[Paschendale]

I disagree -- libel and slander can be used as a tactic to punish and censor people for unpopular opinions.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia << What's going on

FAQs about SLAPPs | Public Participation Project << What we're doing to stop it

 

[JP Cusick]

It is seen by the government that when one publishes a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation that it is speech not protected under the first amendment. It is also seen by the government that when one makes a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation that is again not protected speech under the first amendment. What they’re arguing in both cases is that one has a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.

My understanding is that it is extremely hard to sue for damages based on slander or libel, and I doubt that most Courts would ever even accept such a case in the first place.

American law is based on the old English law and it use to be that the rich Aristocrats were able to sue for negative comments even when the words were true and accurate and provable.

In the UK they still have certain such laws which we hear about only when the Monarchy demands the words are unfitting from some News source.

However, in order to have a right to your own reputation, you would have to own it, but in order to own your reputation you would need to have ownership of other peoples feelings and their attitudes towards you, which would mean you need to have ownership over other peoples minds. Since no one can possibly have ownership of another persons mind, as we all have ownership of our person, we clearly can not have a right to our own reputation.

I say that you are misunderstanding what is really meant by "reputation" and it really is a far more challenging subject and more interesting of a thing to control.

It is a mistake to view the libel or the slander as being any part of the reputation of the person being slandered or libeled, because that thereby becomes the reputation of the one DOING the slander and or libel.

An old adage = "I am rubber and you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

It is also important to understand that their judgments and their opinion or beliefs are not our reputation.

They (anyone) making harsh judgments or calling names or negative claims are expressing their own reputation - not ours.

That also works with people who do not spew out judgements and does not call names or gives positive claims - than that is their own reputation too and not ours.

Our own reputation is truly within our own control - for those who know how to do it and who understands how it works.

An example: a person says to me = "you told on your self so you are a jerk" - that part about a "jerk" is the judgement and name calling which bounces back onto the one speaking that, while my reputation is in the "you told on your self" which means that my rep is that I am the open honest guy who takes my responsibility even when it might hurt me.

If you (or anyone) believes that the judgements and the name calling are a true reflections of your reputation then that is giving an unjust and unreal control to other people who are trying to take control of that for which they have no right.

While it is true that when people making false statements that are harmful to how people think of you, which can affect such things as how they interact with you personally, or your success in life, it can not be argued for the reasons that I have stated that there is any right to stop people from making false statements about you, and therefore, there is no justifiable reason to keep such behavior illegal.

There might be laws on the books which makes slander or libel as illegal, but they are mostly unenforceable.

If you just want to clean out the law books - then that would be a miracle to ever happen.

If a major News source tells known falsehoods or distortions or lies then they loose their credibility (their reputation) and many of them get fired accordingly.

The reputation of people or of News or of Corporations is all dependent of their selves and not on their accusers.

Our own reputation depends on our own reliable truthfulness, and foremost is to be truthful to thy self.

 

[Paleocon]

My understanding is that it is extremely hard to sue for damages based on slander or libel, and I doubt that most Courts would ever even accept such a case in the first place.

American law is based on the old English law and it use to be that the rich Aristocrats were able to sue for negative comments even when the words were true and accurate and provable.

In the UK they still have certain such laws which we hear about only when the Monarchy demands the words are unfitting from some News source.


I say that you are misunderstanding what is really meant by "reputation" and it really is a far more challenging subject and more interesting of a thing to control.

It is a mistake to view the libel or the slander as being any part of the reputation of the person being slandered or libeled, because that thereby becomes the reputation of the one DOING the slander and or libel.

An old adage = "I am rubber and you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

It is also important to understand that their judgments and their opinion or beliefs are not our reputation.

They (anyone) making harsh judgments or calling names or negative claims are expressing their own reputation - not ours.

That also works with people who do not spew out judgements and does not call names or gives positive claims - than that is their own reputation too and not ours.

Our own reputation is truly within our own control - for those who know how to do it and who understands how it works.

An example: a person says to me = "you told on your self so you are a jerk" - that part about a "jerk" is the judgement and name calling which bounces back onto the one speaking that, while my reputation is in the "you told on your self" which means that my rep is that I am the open honest guy who takes my responsibility even when it might hurt me.

If you (or anyone) believes that the judgements and the name calling are a true reflections of your reputation then that is giving an unjust and unreal control to other people who are trying to take control of that for which they have no right.


There might be laws on the books which makes slander or libel as illegal, but they are mostly unenforceable.

If you just want to clean out the law books - then that would be a miracle to ever happen.

If a major News source tells known falsehoods or distortions or lies then they loose their credibility (their reputation) and many of them get fired accordingly.

The reputation of people or of News or of Corporations is all dependent of their selves and not on their accusers.

Our own reputation depends on our own reliable truthfulness, and foremost is to be truthful to thy self.

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Morality Games]

It is seen by the government that when one publishes a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation that it is speech not protected under the first amendment. It is also seen by the government that when one makes a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation that is again not protected speech under the first amendment. What they’re arguing in both cases is that one has a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.

However, in order to have a right to your own reputation, you would have to own it, but in order to own your reputation you would need to have ownership of other peoples feelings and their attitudes towards you, which would mean you need to have ownership over other peoples minds. Since no one can possibly have ownership of another persons mind, as we all have ownership of our person, we clearly can not have a right to our own reputation.

While it is true that when people making false statements that are harmful to how people think of you, which can affect such things as how they interact with you personally, or your success in life, it can not be argued for the reasons that I have stated that there is any right to stop people from making false statements about you, and therefore, there is no justifiable reason to keep such behavior illegal.

Some of the worst setbacks to civilization in human history occurred because people spread rumors about them. Most humans are unwilling or unable to spend the time researching who has is right and honorable in a conflict. Not surprising, since its basically a full time job.

Not that it matters *that much* since our culture values superficial thngs like whether someone is a celebrity or sexy more than whether they are honorable.

 

[ataturk]

JP usick writes drivel about law in the UK.

Anyone can sue for libel I have done so myself. Truth is a defence against libel. The monarchy has no power whatsoever to stop freedom of speech.

 

[JP Cusick]

JP usick writes drivel about law in the UK.

Anyone can sue for libel I have done so myself. Truth is a defence against libel. The monarchy has no power whatsoever to stop freedom of speech.

The UK has always been a little backwards, and oftentimes the UK is virtually Medieval or archaic.

Often it is hard for us Americans to understand the British, which thereby helps having them on the opposite side of the ocean.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

It appears that Henrin believes that slander and libel are crimes. They aren't, at least not in the United States. They are torts.