15
   

Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 02:11 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Calling it slanderous assumes that Snood is a bad person, a person of deserved ill-repute.


I've already responded to this attempted distortion. However, I have not yet commented on your hypocrisy with respect to the matter. If you ask me, calling someone (Snood--also me) "delusional" is rather slanderous, eh?

Quote:
Sententa: Apparently, Layman/Snood is also delusional
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 02:19 am
@layman,
No, and that's an attempt at distortion on your part. You might believe that there is life on Mars. You might be so strongly motivated to believe that there is life on Mars, that you allege evidence of life on Mars has been found. No such evidence has been found. You would be cherishing a delusion. Being deluded is not morally suspect, nor is it criminal. To allege that it is a slanderous term is playing fast and loose with the language--probably because your only real interest here is to "score points."
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 03:25 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Being deluded is not morally suspect, nor is it criminal. To allege that it is a slanderous term is playing fast and loose with the language


Yeah, right, eh? Who's "playing fast and loose with the language" here? Since you're an expert on EVERYTHING, you are no doubt an expert on law and language, too, but....

A statement need not be either criminal or "morally suspect" to be slanderous:

Quote:
Merriam Webster: "the act of making a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone...


http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/slander

Furthermore, statements which call someone's soundness of mind into question are "slanderous per se," i.e., inherently slanderous (even though the allegations do not contain anything "criminal" or "morally suspect"):

Quote:
Most states recognize slander per se, where certain statements are so damaging the actual damage does not have to be proved. Generally, per se statements include false oral accusations about...mental illness...

http://enlightenme.com/definition-of-slander/
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 03:35 am
@layman,
Ah, the straw man fallacy . . . without your army of straw men, you'd have nothing to say. I claimed no expertise. Saying that someone is deluded, apart from being merely the expression of an opinion, does not automatically cause people to have a bad opinion of someone. I note that you selectively quote the definition of slander per se--i guess you thought that would help your case to omit the references to types of disease.

Your argument is specious and feeble. You have not even remotely made a case that saying that someone is deluded constitutes slander. You're really reaching here. It seems that you're so obsessed with "scoring" here, that you attempt to make almost any paltry argument. You're boring now, bye . . .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  4  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 06:33 am
I dont know what all this debate about slander is ...it is only for real people and everyone here is using a pseudonom . Exactly how would someone's friends, family and the general public know who was who ? If you tell them who you are, then you are responsible for spreading the slander . Hardly a good tactic to win a court case .
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 06:44 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Hardly a good tactic to win a court case .


Well, Ionus, nobody (well, at least not I) was using the term "slander" in a literal sense to begin with, of course.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 06:51 am
@layman,
The legal definition and the dictionary definition are not the same . In Law if it is for the public good, you may get away with strong criticism . eg Politicians, political parties, policies, and public figures, but in Law it doesnt matter if it is false, simply that it was said to do harm to a persons reputation . It might very well be true but be found to have its main cause is to damage a reputation . Also the line between slander and libel has become thoroughly smudged with technology .
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:00 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Law it doesnt matter if it is false...It might very well be true but be found to have its main cause is to damage a reputation


That is most definitely not true of US law. Here truth is an absolute defense, as I understand it.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:03 am
@layman,
Quote:
truth is an absolute defense
We go about it in different ways, but the laws of the English speaking world do the same thing . Is there an easy way for you to check ? I think you understand the logic, you cant go around damaging people for no reason, regardless if its true .
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:06 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I think you understand the logic, you cant go around damaging people for no reason, regardless if its true .

You must not be including the USA in what you're calling the "English-speaking world," then, Ionus.
Quote:
Is there an easy way for you to check

Quote:
. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:
•published
•false
•injurious
•unprivileged


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:08 am
@layman,
Very Happy The same people separated by a common language...so what happened to the Atheism thread ?
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:09 am
@Ionus,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

try this site.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:24 am
@argome321,
Thanks Argy . It seems in the USA only public figures are protected by the 'malice intent' aspect .

There is also an aspect it didnt mention, and that is a reasonable need to know . If we are all in a football team and I tell the members that you have a bad knee that you had been keeping secret, here it would not work as slander because the team it could be argued, have a right to know and I only told them .
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:29 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Thanks Argy . It seems in the USA only public figures are protected by the 'malice intent' aspect .


Sorry to be a stickler, Ionus, but public figures are not "protected by" the actual malice aspect. Here public figures can be subjected to even FALSE statements which damage their reputations without having a cause of action for defamation (that would not be true of a normal citizen, nor would a normal citizen have to prove malice). Public figures can ONLY prevail if they show both falsity AND malice. If it's true, they have no remedy either.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:37 am
@layman,
Thanks Layman . It seems over here we are far more against freedom of speech .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:39 am
@layman,
Quote:
The "public figure" doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967), held that prominent public persons had to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false) on the part of the news media in order to prevail in a libel lawsuit.
Actually does that contradict what you said about false statements ?

Quote:
In 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."


Both of these are from your Ref, Argy .
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:42 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Actually does that contradict what you said about false statements ?


Not that I can tell--in what way do you mean?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:45 am
@layman,
I was editing whilst you were replying...
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:50 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Both of these are from your Ref, Argy .


I don't know how the public libel and slander acts work, because it doesn't matter it seems who ever the President of the USA is, he can be libeled or slandered just about from anyone. I've never seen or heard a President suing anyone over such matters.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:51 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I was editing whilst you were replying...


Yeah, I noticed that. After I made my response, your post suddenly had a lot more in it. That said, I have read the additions, and it doesn't change my answer any. Is it still a question for you?
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Soon to be world traveler, Dog willing! - Discussion by Stacey the red baron
The Bah! Humbug! Christmas thread. - Discussion by msolga
A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
Why all the Decryptonite stuff? - Question by Tes yeux noirs
Oh rest ye, Merry Gentleman - Discussion by jespah
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2020 at 12:24:52