defamation should still be available for those who's career's and businesses were destroyed from false accusations either settled by mob mentality and not brought to the police, or found innocent of their accusations in the court.
There needs to be repercussions for people inciting witch hunts on social media.
In a nation with free speech if someone says something about you that's untrue, you know what you can do? You can use your God given right of freedom of speech to counteract any dissent! Isn't that awesome?
Yes and no. I seem to remember back in the day when "defamation of character" wasn't a thing, and instead there was "libel" and "slander." If someone publically states that you're a moron, or an asshole, or whatever... then who cares?
But if they state that you committed a crime when you haven't? If they call you a thief or a murderer or a rapist (or, yes, a pedophile,) then slander should be on the table. Saying "No I'm not" in public after the allegations come out doesn't quite cut it when it comes to public opinion, and you can't prove a negative.
Yes and pointing out "I'm going to kill you" isn't valid free speech proves the limit exists. You draw the line there, but in reality that line WAS NEVER there. It was at defamation. You can't libel/slander, you can't purposely put people in immediate physical harm, and you can't make threats. That's where the line has always been. And the line has shifted towards more freedom since allowing defamation that is true. Which was still illegal at the founding of our country and after the bill of rights.
You can say it's ridiculous however you have to face a high hurdle to claim that defamation is protected by the first amendment when it wasn't in 1776, or 1791, or 1804. And has never been anytime between now and then.
It was the NY supreme court, not just some judge. And no court at any point overturned defamation lawsuits as violations of 1st amendment protected free speech. It is not protected and has never been protected period.
Also that 1804 case I was telling you about. The libelous guy's lawyer was Alexander Hamilton and the defense he gave was that the truth shouldn't be considered slander / libel. NOT that it was 1st amendment protected speech. Because no one thought it was, the 1st amendment was never meant to protect slander and libel.
defamation should still be available for those who's career's and businesses were destroyed from false accusations either settled by mob mentality and not brought to the police, or found innocent of their accusations in the court.
There needs to be repercussions for people inciting witch hunts on social media.
Yes and no. I seem to remember back in the day when "defamation of character" wasn't a thing, and instead there was "libel" and "slander." If someone publically states that you're a moron, or an asshole, or whatever... then who cares?
But if they state that you committed a crime when you haven't? If they call you a thief or a murderer or a rapist (or, yes, a pedophile,) then slander should be on the table. Saying "No I'm not" in public after the allegations come out doesn't quite cut it when it comes to public opinion, and you can't prove a negative.
I mean you're wrong. In 1804 the truth was not even a valid defense of defamation lawsuits. Defamation has never been protected by the 1st amendment.
Yes and pointing out "I'm going to kill you" isn't valid free speech proves the limit exists. You draw the line there, but in reality that line WAS NEVER there. It was at defamation. You can't libel/slander, you can't purposely put people in immediate physical harm, and you can't make threats. That's where the line has always been. And the line has shifted towards more freedom since allowing defamation that is true. Which was still illegal at the founding of our country and after the bill of rights.
You can say it's ridiculous however you have to face a high hurdle to claim that defamation is protected by the first amendment when it wasn't in 1776, or 1791, or 1804. And has never been anytime between now and then.
It was the NY supreme court, not just some judge. And no court at any point overturned defamation lawsuits as violations of 1st amendment protected free speech. It is not protected and has never been protected period.
Also that 1804 case I was telling you about. The libelous guy's lawyer was Alexander Hamilton and the defense he gave was that the truth shouldn't be considered slander / libel. NOT that it was 1st amendment protected speech. Because no one thought it was, the 1st amendment was never meant to protect slander and libel.