The following is a representation of the standard argument as to why a remedy requiring the removal of defamatory speech from a publication is not a violation of the right to free speech:
- The right to Freedom of Expression is protected by s14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”).
- The operational provisions of the BORA provide in section 5 that a reasonable limit to Freedom of Expression can be justified in a free and democratic society where that limit is prescribed by law.
- Section 5 is subject to section 4, which states in mandatory terms that no court can decline to apply any provision of an enactment on the sole grounds that the provision is inconsistent with the BORA.
- Notwithstanding this, section 6 requires the court rule in a manner as consistent as possible with Bill of Rights.
- If a Respondent’s actions constitute a breach of s4 of the Defamation Act 1992 therefore the remedy sought, removal of the defamatory material from the publication, does not violate the Respondent’s right to Freedom of Expression.
While this is the standard argument it has always felt wrong to me. There is something unsatisfactory about appealing to a mechanism in the law that, as argued, feels like it is shearing off a part of an important right and freedom, even if the law says that it is ok.
I find this argument unsettling and lacking something; at the same time defamatory speech is insidious, causes harm, hurts; intuitively it just feels wrong to say that one is morally justified in spreading harmful falsehoods about a person and is not required to account for the wrongs done, because of their right to free speech.
After discussions with Matt about this I have decided that I prefer the following argument:
- Freedom of Expression exists to allow people to freely express their opinions and impart information without fear of legal penalty.
- Defamation is expression imparted to another that lowers the standing of a person in the eyes of their peers and is not true and is not honest opinion which is genuinely held.(I am ignoring the third defence, privilege).
- A person who expresses defamation is not engaging in Freedom of Expression as where there is no truth or honest opinion then a person is neither attempting to inform another or attempting to express their opinion.
- The basis for this is that to attempt to inform someone is to attempt to increase that person’s repertoire of true beliefs’ and to impart an opinion is to express what one honestly believes to be the case.
- Therefore, the freedom that the right to Freedom of Expression protects is all speech that is true or honestly held to be true by the speaker.
That is much better.
Defamatory speech is not free speech therefore legal sanctions against it are entirely appropriate in both legal and moral senses.
Context:
Two blogs have recently been found to have published defamation of me, the nature of which was described as “extremely serious” by a Court of Law. The above demonstrates why I feel I was perfectly justified in seeking the removal of the defamatory material, one by Court Order, one by private request. John Stuart Mill, the UN Charter, Milton, Common Law, to point to a few, have agreed for centuries that defining Freedom of Speech to be all speech that is not Defamation is just in all mediums. Defamatory speech being restricted or punished by law, offline or online, poses no threat to anyone.
Tags: Defamation · Freedom of Speech · Rights and Freedoms42 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Free speech is speech that promotes freedom.
Defamatory speech, or the speech of leftists, communists, unionists, environmentalists etc, does not promote freedom – it is the very opposite!
For that simple reason – almost by definition – speech that is defamatory or leftist is simply not free speech and cannot qualify under any definition of freedom or speech.
Any of the so-called freedoms [freedom of expression, of association etc] can only genuinely occur in societies where people are prepared to exercise personal responsibility for their actions. ie free speech must ultimately be restricted if the freedom is abused too defame people, to lie, to pervert a just society through spreading disinformation . Ultimately freedom of speech can be no less but no more than freedom to tell the truth, because lies and dishonesty on one persons part will always restrict the freedom of another. No matter how free we may be , our individual freedom actually changes to responsibility where the next persons freedom begins.
And who decides what the “truth” is you idiots? What you are talking about is totalitarianism. Morons.
Moron Eater, who decides that what you just said is true?
Sigh. Thanks for the pseudo-response,.
Its an answer to any onjection isn’t it? Selective scepticism. The ultimate weapon of the bad philosopher.
However, the fact remains that putting limits on freedom of speach, whatever the intentions, will result in these limits being grabbed by political opportunists to silence their opponents. The catch phrase “of couse we believe in freedom… but this is an exception to the rule!” is an increasingly familiar one.
“I don’t like what they said” or “I disagree with this” is not the same as “this is defamation”….
Now a capitalist will say a communists clakms are untrue… and hence not protected by freedom of speach. And vice versa. The last couple of comments demonsrate this.
Moron Eater what kind of good philosophy weapon do you call leaving comments with the email address “ma***************@so******.com”?
Well, if that is the best you can do…
By the way, that ^ is not how you spell my name.
Moron Eater
Actually pointing out that an objection rests on premises which contradict themselves does answer the objection. However, calling a position you disagree with pejorative names like “pseudo response” or denigrating others as “poor philosophers” doesnt.
Nor is this selective skepticism, its simply taking what another person says for the sake of argument and showing it leads to incoherence.
I agree, but I dont recall anyone saying this was defamation. Responding to a position no one proposed instead of the one they did is also not really a compelling response.
This is an unsound argument, it simply does not follow that if you support in principle one restriction on freedom of speech then others also must be enacted. Everyone recognizes some limits on freedom of speech. Laws against fraud, for example, perjury, laws against standing out side a persons house at 3am with a loud speaker. Shouting fire in a crowded theater, and so on. It doesn’t follow from any of this that you cant criticise National or Labour.
In the context of defamation law which involves allegations about peoples character the answer is simple. The courts. The courts actually determine whether accusations that another has performed a misdeed are true or false all the time. The Prosecution claims Bob abused a child, the defense says he did not. The court decides which claim is true. The plantiff claims Bob lied on a contract, the defendant Bob says he did not and the contract is valid. The court decides whether the plantiffs accusation is true. If you really believe the courts cant decide whether an accusation against another’s character is true you’ll need to abolish a lot more than defamation laws.
That was humour not philosophy Madalien. But I see you managed to avoid any of the real issues by picking up on a side issue… another “skill” of lawyers and philosophers I guess? *shrug*
“I agree, but I dont recall anyone saying this was defamation….”
Then reread the other comments on this post. Just by the by, my original comment was aimed at “Angry Tory” and “Jeremy” both of whom seem to think that people with different political opinions should not be protected by freedom of speach. These were the morons I was referring to.
So.. if you don’t recall anyone saying that… hust look up Matty boy. Just look up.
“…For that simple reason – almost by definition – speech that is defamatory or leftist is simply not free speech …”
Now – this may be parody of the sorts of views rightwing blogs like this one promote, but it is hard to tell.
Moron Eater,
I agree, but I dont recall anyone saying this was defamation….”
Then reread the other comments on this post. Just by the by, my original comment was aimed at “Angry Tory” and “Jeremy” both of whom seem to think that people with different political opinions should not be protected by freedom of speach. These were the morons I was referring to.
I take Angry Tory to be being ironic or as you say a parody and so not saying that defamation involved simply expressing different political opinions.
And I don’t think Jeremy suggested that that people with different political opinions should not be protected by freedom of speech. Jeremy said too defame people, to lie, to pervert a just society through spreading disinformation . Ultimately freedom of speech can be no less but no more than freedom to tell the truth, because lies and dishonesty on one persons part will always restrict the freedom of another Here the context suggests he is referring to people who “lie” or “defame” or spread disinformation to pervert justice” that’s quite different from expressing different political opinions.
If a person believes a particular political opinion is true then him expressing it is not lying, nor is he attempting to pervert justice by misinforming, or defaming.
So to clarify: Me saying that : “Madalien is irrational and hypocritical” is not defamation because I believe it to be true?
Jeremy say:
“Ultimately freedom of speech can be no less but no more than freedom to tell the truth…”
Which means that if something is untrue it should not be seen as freedom of speech. He does not say the person has to THINK it is true, but that it actually MUST be true.
Hence my original question (which the Mad Alien rejected with a bit of sophistry) :
Who decides what is the “truth”… this is an important question not to be dismissed with the infantile undergrad response of “yeah… but how do you know what is true”
Moron Eater,
You write
Yes Jeremy’s words did include the phrase you refer to. However, the context in which he utters it suggests he did not mean it in the way you suggest above. Notice again the context
In this context its pretty clear that my “tell the truth” he does in fact refer to things the person knows or believes to true. Not the word “because” which comes immediately after the section you snipped. “because lies and dishonesty on one persons part will always restrict the freedom of another”.
In other words telling he uses the phrase “tell the truth” in antithesis to lying and dishonesty. The proceeding passages show he uses it in antithesis to lying, defaming, perverting justice, and spreading misinformation. So when someone use the phrase “tell the truth” in that context they cant sensibly be interpreted as saying what you are suggesting he says here.
Being rational and non hypocritical involves amongst other things not quoting people out of context so you can publicly call them a moron and then dismissing as sophistry others you simply point out that you have done it. Honesty requires people accurately present others views and respond to them fairly.
Actually I did respond to this question directly in my response on Jul 12, 2013 at 8:32 pm above. Moreover I also pointed out that Madeleine’s response that you here dismiss by calling “infantile” was in fact sound.
Sorry but ignoring what people actually write, quoting them out of context, claiming they have no answered questions they have and dismissing people with name calling. Really is not a rational response to anything. You may think you are making others look like Morons but I am afraid you are not.
“Yes Jeremy’s words did include the phrase you refer to. However, the context in which he utters it suggests he did not mean it in the way you suggest above. Notice again the context”
Well. I just disagree with you about this. It is ambiguous and so there is some subjectivity in interpreting this. So we will just have to agree to disagree. But what Jeremy did or did not mean is not really that important. The larger issues are not altered by what this comment did or did not mean, so don’t get too caught up in that.
“Being rational and non hypocritical involves amongst other things not quoting people out of context so you can publicly call them a moron and then dismissing as sophistry others you simply point out that you have done it. Honesty requires people accurately present others views and respond to them fairly.”
Well actually what I said was my honest opinion. This was how I honestly interpreted this passage, so I was not being dishonest. Do you honestly think I was being dishonest, or are you defaming me?
“I also pointed out that Madeleine’s response that you here dismiss by calling “infantile” was in fact sound.”
No – it was the usual “yeah but how do you know that” tactic of the pseudo-intelligent. Like a Jedi mind trick it works on the weak-minded, but does not fool most people.
“Sorry but ignoring what people actually write, quoting them out of context, claiming they have no answered questions they have and dismissing people with name calling. Really is not a rational response to anything. You may think you are making others look like Morons but I am afraid you are not.”
As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a deep irony in you saying this. Your chief tactics are abuse, ignoring difficult questions, name calling, and deliberate misrepresentation. I am just an online troll trying to wind you up… so I can be excused from being intellectually weak… what is your excuse?
Just by the by… again your response was almost unreadable due to the many grammatical/spelling errors. If you want to be taken seriously you should really proofread your comments… it is only with difficulty that I can sort of work out what you are trying to say.
Actually they go to the heart of the issues. Your argument above was based on the idea that people were saying that any statement someone disagreed with and though was untrue was defamation. If no one actually said this your argument is erroneous.
Yes, when someone snips a persons phrase out of context and then says it means the opposite of what it says when placed in context I tend to think they are being dishonest. Especially when its done by a person who is making it clear by there actions their goal is simply to insult and demean people rather than engage in sensible discussion.
Also it pays to know what the legal defamation is and how the defenses of truth and honest opinion in law. It actually works before you comment on threads about defamation. Simply making mocking comments based on ignorance really doesn’t count for much.
Actually no it wasn’t. As I explained above what the argument did was show the statement you made contradicted itself. Pointing out a person’s premises entail a contradiction is a sensible way of arguing against a position. Going on about Jedi mind tricks, and calling people pseudo intelligent or weak minded isn’t.
If you want to be taken seriously don’t contradict yourself and don’t response with name calling when someone points out contradictions can’t be true. Also it helps to follow what other people are actually saying instead of reading your own prejudiced stero-types into what people say.
“
Well even if any of that was true, (and a string of assertions does not make it true) its hard to see how this responds to what I said. If my doing this is an invalid way of arguing then you doing it must be invalid as well. Pointing out I in the past have made fallacious arguments doesn’t make yours non fallacious.
“Actually they go to the heart of the issues. Your argument above was based on the idea that people were saying that any statement someone disagreed with and though was untrue was defamation. If no one actually said this your argument is erroneous.”
So if Jeremy did not happen to say this then it has NEVER been said by anyone in the world ever??? What are you trying to say here? As I said the issue does not rest on one comment box on your blog. Weird…
“Yes, when someone snips a persons phrase out of context and then says it means the opposite of what it says when placed in context I tend to think they are being dishonest.”
This would assume you know that this is the REASON why I did this. I could have done it in all honesty thinking that he meant what I said I thought he meant. This is in fact the case. Calling me a liar and dishonest because I interpret something differently (or even interpret it wrong) is in fact not just. This is the sort of mistake I was talking about. You are saying I was dishonest… whereas in fact it was a disagreement about how to interpret something. This is of course analogous to a political disagreement where someone from the Labour party might accuse someone from National of being dishonest for having a different economic policy… even if the National person sincerely believes this policy is a good one. This is where you get into problems if you want to say that freedom of speech only protects speaking the truth.
“Especially when its done by a person who is making it clear by there actions their goal is simply to insult and demean people rather than engage in sensible discussion.”
Sorry – was this me or you?
“Also it pays to know what the legal defamation is and how the defenses of truth and honest opinion in law.”
This is not really a sentence…
“It actually works before you comment on threads about defamation.”
Nor is this…
“Simply making mocking comments based on ignorance really doesn’t count for much.”
So stop doing it. I have made many valid points. Your emotional reactions to not take away from this fact.
“Actually no it wasn’t.”
Actually yeah it was, as your response demonstrates. There is no contradiction in what I said. Not least because what I did was ask a question, and questions cannot really contain a contradiction. This is pretty elementary.
Socrates: And who decides what the “truth” is?
Theaetetus : Socrates, who decides that what you just said is true?
Socrates: I did not say anything was true I asked a question. Are you drunk Theaetetus
I see that you have been reduced to changing your commenters names to insults. My name is also Matt you insecure twerp.
Sure someone somewhere in the world might have said this. The problem is you were responding to a post made here and comments made here. So whats relevant is what was said here.
I didn’t call you dishonest because you interpreted something differently. I suggested this because you took a persons comment and snipped it out of context and based your interpretation on that. moreover you used that interpretation to insult them. I think that is dishonest.
Actually, it was about you snipping a comment out of context and then rather smugly insinuating other people were morons for holding the position. That’s different to simply disagreeing.
No its not, because I didn’t say you were dishonest because you disagreed with me. I said you were dishonest because you snipped Jeremy’s comment out of context. You clearly had read it in context, but choose to quote it out of context and use that as grounds for calling people names.
For the record when the Nats or Labour do this I do think they are dishonest, not because of there political or economic views but because its dishonest to quote people out of context in that way and then use it to denigrate others.
We have already established no one has said freedom of speech protects only the truth in the sense you mean here. What was said was that it does not cover public denigration of others characters which is neither true nor honestly believed by the denigrator.
Note again the difference between saying, “I disagree with Labour” and “David Shearer is a pedophile” the first is disagreement the second is defamation.
I am not the person who posts under the name “Matt is a moron” calls myself moron eater, gave an email address called “matt is an idiot” on there first comment and began the conversation calling people morons, pseudo intellectuals, poor lawyers and so on.
engaging in these sorts of tactics and then playing the passive victim when you dont get treated with kid gloves is I also think dishonest.
None of those are emotional reactions. Pointing out a person is relying on a misunderstanding of what defamation is and how it works, actually isn’t an “emotional reaction” its pointing out a premise of their argument is false.
That’s actually false, because there is such thing as a rhetorical question, and when a person asks a rhetorical question they are actually asserting a proposition or argument not simply asking a question.
The fact you followed your question with “you morons your talking about totalitarianism” strongly suggests you were actually drawing a conclusion from the question, in which case it was a rhetorical question.
Perhaps you should be a bit more honest about what occured for the readers. You posted under the name “Matt is a moron” so complaining that my wife changed your name to an insult is really rather dishonest.
As to your name being Matt, is that why you put your e-mail as “ma***************@so******.com”. Is your name Madalain as well?
My apology Matt. It was the mad wife who changed it to an insult not you. That makes more sense actually. My mistake.
Now as for the other issue:
“I didn’t call you dishonest because you interpreted something differently. I suggested this because you took a persons comment and snipped it out of context and based your interpretation on that. moreover you used that interpretation to insult them. I think that is dishonest.”
Insulting someone is not “dishonest”. It may be rude, infantile, nasty, satanic, or any other number of things but it is not “dishonest:. This is simply not what this word means.
But again – when I read this comment I honestly thought that the commenter was saying that freedom of speech only protected true statements. Was I wrong? Maybe – but I am still not convinced. Does being wrong make me dishonest. Of course not. Is mindreading one of your skills Flanny? If not I suggest you stop asserting what my intentions or state of mind where when I wrote that comment. You are wrong. I remember my own state of mind. Keeping up this “you are a liar” angle is pathetic and insulting.
Your constant insistence that I am a liar does not make it true 🙂
The rest of your post (which keeps assuming I am a liar despite my honest assertion that I did (mis?)interpret the comment the way I say I did) is nothing more than you saying over and over that I am a liar… so hardly worth responding to.
No wait… one more point:
you right (sic):
“engaging in these sorts of tactics and then playing the passive victim when you dont get treated with kid gloves is I also think dishonest. ”
Do you actually know what “honest” and “dishonest” mean Matt? They do not mean the same as “nice” and “nasty”…
Also could you please tell me what those half sentences meant please? It is very hard to respond to your points when they are so often fragments rather than full statements.
“
I didn’t say insulting someone was dishonest, I said it was dishonest to quote a person’s comments out of context so that they appear to say something they didn’t and then use that as a basis for insulting them.
I didn’t sat that dishonest was synonymous with mean either. I said that adopting agresssive and provocative mode of communication and then pretending to be a victim complaining people respond in a proportionate manner is dishonest. Again not the same thing.
You seem to have a real problem responding to what people actually say. I guess mis-attributing things to people and calling them names like, moron, idiot, and so on, is a lot easier than actually defending your own position with a rational argument. Contrary to what you may desire MandM is a forum for discussion of our posts, not simply a platform for you to attempt to be insulting behind a pseudonym. So when you have a rational response of some sort let me know.
Do you think that freedom of speech covers defamatory attacks on other people’s characters which are neither true nor honestly believed to be true by those who utter them? Do you think the goods freedom of speech exists to protect and facilitate include this? “you’re a moron” is not really an answer to this question as far as I can tell.
You have, as ever, ONLY addressed those hings which I have said which were (in your eyes) insulting other people.
The many points I have raised over and over you have systematically ignored. This speaks volumes.
As to your question: Yes. Because there is no way of knowing whether a person “honestly believes” something they say. Until a failsafe method of mind reading emerges, this is exactly why freedom od speech is such an important concept.
It stops voices being silenced by those in power under the threat of legal action.
Three things, First, the concept of freedom of speech has historically never included defamation, so appealing to it is irrelevant you need to argue why it should now be revised.
Second, I did answer this specific argument you state “Because there is no way of knowing whether a person “honestly believes” something they say.” if that was the case we could never have witness testimony in court, because we could not know the person was not lying. We could not prosecute for perjury, the justice system currently operates on the denial of the principle.
Third, you talk of fail safe methods, thats an argument for anarchism no legal process is entirely failsafe so unless you abolish them completely that argument proves to much.
“Three things, First, the concept of freedom of speech has historically never included defamation, so appealing to it is irrelevant you need to argue why it should now be revised.”
I don’t have much time for arguments from tradition or authority like this one. How a certain concept has been defined by a certain culture is not relevant to determining the truth of the situation. So nope. Fail.
“Second, I did answer this specific argument you state “Because there is no way of knowing whether a person “honestly believes” something they say.” if that was the case we could never have witness testimony in court, because we could not know the person was not lying.”
Which is why we have OTHER sorts of evidence in courts… I would be reluctant to ever convict someone bases JUST on witnes testimony, because I would always think that without OTHER sorts of evidence there was enough of a gap for reasonable doubt. My inability to mind-read creates this doubt. So this example does not really work either. Fail.
“We could not prosecute for perjury, the justice system currently operates on the denial of the principle.”
Even perjury trials would require more evidence than the complainant saying “that’s not true.” So even this example fails. Fail.
“Third, you talk of fail safe methods, thats an argument for anarchism no legal process is entirely failsafe so unless you abolish them completely that argument proves to much.”
This is the silliest thing I have read all week… and I read a lot of silly things. Basically you are saying that if I disagree about where the boundary lines of free speech are then I must abandon ALL concepts of law and revert to a state of barbarism (which I assume is what you mean by “anarchism” as opposed to the political theory of anarchism).
The problem with this A-bomb argument is that it backfires and can be applied to anything. I could say that your concept leads you into Fascism (because it is slightly different from mine) but that would be a moronic thing to say so I won’t. I could, I suppose, say that your concept would also lead to Anarchism/Socialism/Cannibalism as well.. no need to make an argument saying why.. the insinuation is enough. Triple Fail.
Bob, again you seem to have responded to arguments I did not actually make instead of the ones I did make.
If I had argued that the fact that a claim was true because a culture had defined a concept a certain way that response would work. The problem is I did not argue that.
You appealed to the concept of freedom of speech, my response was that when you look at how the phrase “freedom of speech” is understood in our culture the concept of freedom of speech does not entail what you suggested it did.
Thats not the same as claiming something is true because society says so.
“
Reasonable doubt is the standard in criminal cases, civil cases and many family law cases don’t rely on that standard so this really does not address my point.
But even if it did the argument again is based on a straw man, I did not say we rely “exclusively” on eye witness testimony. My claim was the fact we rely on such testimony at shows courts can and do make justified beliefs about whether a person is reporting what they honestly believe to be the case.
In fact your response confirms this, we use other evidence, to test whether people are telling the truth on the stand, exactly, we can use evidence to determine whether a person is lying or not.
Even perjury trials would require more evidence than the complainant saying “that’s not true.” So even this example fails. Fail.
Again, that would be relevant if I had argued that the only evidence we need to convict of the perjury was “the complainant saying “that’s not true.”
But of course I did not argue that. What I did argue was the fact we can and do prosecute for perjury, or fraud, or a host of other dishonesty charges, shows that courts can and do determine whether a person is misrepresenting the facts as they know them. If we could not tell this then we could never prosecute for these offences.
Your point about evidence again confirms this. Your noting we can convict when we have adequate evidence, exactly.
“
Well if I was saying that then I agree it would be flawed, but that’s not what I said.
Note what I actually said in the comment you quoted.“Third, you talk of fail safe methods, thats an argument for anarchism no legal process is entirely fail safe so unless you abolish them completely that argument proves to much.”
This does not say that if you disagree with the boundaries of free speech then you support anarchism. What it does say is that the particular argument you gave for extending the boundary, would also entail anarchism.
This is clearly true, the reason you gave was that the method I suggested was “not fail safe” but that’s true of the methods used in every criminal or civil prosecution. So if that were a good reason for not prohibiting something in law nothing would be prohibited.
Again, calling something “silly” and “crap” and then misrepresenting what a person said is not a substitute for offering an “argument” against what they “actually said.
Well actually you did argue this way, perhaps you should look at your opening comment on this thread you said
Here you assert that those who disagree with you are morons who support totalitarianism.
But second, I agree that simply asserting that a concept leads to anarchism or totalitarianism is a bad argument and can be applied to any thing. I also agree if you suggest this you need to provide an argument why.
The problem is I did not “simply assert” that a “concept” lead to anarchism. I rather offered an “argument” that the reasons your provided for a conclusion rationally commited you to anarchism. Here is what I said again.
“Third, you talk of fail safe methods, thats an argument for anarchism no legal process is entirely fail safe so unless you abolish them completely that argument proves to much.”
Here I referred not to your suggested boundaries of freedom of speech, but the reasons you offered for accepting them.
Also I did not simply “assert” this was anarchism. I offered an argument as to why those reasons entailed that. The argument involved noting that the reasons you gave applied to every legal process and proceeding and hence, if sound would entail all of them should be abolished.
So again Honest Bob, all you have done is misrepresent others positions and use insulting language as well as condescending talk of how they “fail”.
Note also two things you have done in this discussion. First, you have rigorously objected to me assuming you were not being honest in your engagment and asked me to believe you were truthfully expressing your opinion.
Second, you have argued that people cant make justified claims about whether a person is honestly expressing their opinion.
“Note also two things you have done in this discussion. First, you have rigorously objected to me assuming you were not being honest in your engagment and asked me to believe you were truthfully expressing your opinion.
Second, you have argued that people cant make justified claims about whether a person is honestly expressing their opinion.”
AND… therefore have said one should give the benefit of the doubt in the face of this ignorance. There is no contradiction there.
If we are rationally justified in giving people the benefit of the doubt we can make justified claims about whether people are speaking honestly about what they think, and your position is false.
If we are not rationally justified in giving people the benefit of the doubt, then its not a rationally justifiable position to demand we should.
The point is in communicating online your expecting people to believe what you say and yet claim we cant rationally do this.
“Bob….”
Actually it is Matt, as I have told you. “Honest Bob” is just what my friends call me. Because of my reputation for honesty.
“…again you seem to have responded to arguments I did not actually make instead of the ones I did make.”
No.
“If I had argued that the fact that a claim was true because a culture had defined a concept a certain way that response would work. The problem is I did not argue that.”
You say: ….the concept of freedom of speech has historically never included defamation…. ie. within our intellectual culture we have not defined freedom of speech to mean such and such… you are just splitting hairs here…
“You appealed to the concept of freedom of speech”
Yes. The concept of it… which has historically been seen as different in different cultural contexts. What is difficult about this? Anyway, I think you understand the point. We are debating what SHOULD be seen as freedom of speech… and then your “argument” is basically… yeah but historically that is not what it has been defined as… duh!
“Reasonable doubt is the standard in criminal cases, civil cases and many family law cases don’t rely on that standard so this really does not address my point.”
You seem to be confusing law and ethics a lot. I do not really care what the law in a particular culture is… I gave the example as an illustration, to clarify things… you seem to think that the way we happen to practice law now, or what the legal definition happens to be in 21st century New Zealand or America has some special baring on what is ethically right… weird.
“Again, that would be relevant if I had argued that the only evidence we need to convict of the perjury was “the complainant saying “that’s not true.” ”
I am glad you have come around a bit in this case.
“This does not say that if you disagree with the boundaries of free speech then you support anarchism. What it does say is that the particular argument you gave for extending the boundary, would also entail anarchism.”
This is clearly nonsense. So if courts suddenly decided that defamation was not a crime – then suddenly all other laws would cease to exist? Do you even think before you type? Why does the fact that I think we need to know what someone is thinking in order to say they are lying entails that we can’t find someone guilty of murder if we have a video of them stabbing someone? Why does me saying we need a fail-safe method in one particular and specific circumstance mean that the same logic applies in ALL other areas of life? You think you are being logical don’t you? I mean you really do? This is not just trolling… if it is tell me and I will admit I have been the victim of quite a sophisticated practical joke.
I can say that we can’t find someone guilty of defamation unless we can be CERTAIN of their thoughts… and at the same time say that someone can be found guilty of murder if there is video footage of them murdering someone, and a confession, and 20 eyewitnesses… there is no contradiction here… there is no slide into anarchism (by the way do you even know what that word means?)
I am sorry you find a normal conversation to be “”insulting” there is no need to pull the emotion-card in every reply.
“If we are rationally justified in giving people the benefit of the doubt we can make justified claims about whether people are speaking honestly about what they think, and your position is false.”
This makes no sense? Try rewriting it and I will reply… as it stands it has no meaning. A common problem for you.
I think some punctuation might help. As it stands I can not tell when one sentence ends and the next begins. This makes an argument VERY hard to follow. If you ever go to university and have to write essays this will become important.
If is quite simple Matt.
I said that as a rule of thumb we should assume people are telling the truth unless we have reason to think otherwise… and I have also said that you should not assume I am lying…
The fact that you can twist this into a contradiction shows the genius of your Theological prowess.
Note that I did not say “people cant make justified claims about whether a person is honestly expressing their opinion” – this was your typical theological gymnastics to try to twist my words into something that somehow scores you points.
And again:
What I ACTUALLY said:
“As to your question: Yes. Because there is no way of knowing whether a person “honestly believes” something they say. Until a failsafe method of mind reading emerges, this is exactly why freedom of speech is such an important concept.”
What you have twisted this into:
“Third, you talk of fail safe methods, thats an argument for anarchism no legal process is entirely failsafe so unless you abolish them completely that argument proves to much.”
…..
Let’s look at this shall we. I say that freedom of speech is an important concept. Why? Because we don’t have a failsafe method to know what a person is thinking. ie. I use the lack of failsafe methods as a reason for the importance of freedom of speech.
What you get from this: I think that a failsafe method must exist before any sort of judgments can be made in any circumstances. How do you twist it into this in your mind? What weird process is going on in that head of yours?
There is no such thing as a failsafe (or completely safe) gun, so I think that gun control laws are important… you would twist this into: until a failsafe gun exists we should not have any guns, but also since there are no completely safe artifacts on the planet we should revert back to a zero-technology society… if it was not so sad that you are a philosopher who thinks this was logical it would be funny… as it is I feel quite a bit of pity towards you.
THis could be seen as a textbook example of a strawman – which is why I am almost convinced that you are not a real person and this is a joke.
[…] Flanagan of M and M blog in New Zealand writes, helpfully (and as already cited in correction but it seems […]
Madeleine
Thank you, very well said indeed. Apt in a day where disregard for others is a sadly characteristic problem.
I have cited your comment in responding to pretty much the same issue, as the linked FYI-FTR at UD Blog will show.
I trust also that your health continues to improve and that your family fare well.
GEM
PS: I would say to the self-styled ME that truth is rather easy to sum up: “that which says of what is that it is, and of that which is not that it is not,” from Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b. In this context if one has something sharply adverse to say about someone else — explicitly or by implication or invidious association — one had better do all due diligence to warrant the claims as true, reflecting the whole material truth and nothing but the truth. Failing that, one is failing in duties of care to accuracy, truth and fairness. Defamation stems from those willful failures and is thus first and foremost a moral issue — bearing false witness against one’s neighbour — and then only secondly a legal one.
HB:
Pardon a late comment.
I think the just above is relevant to your fears. For, if we owe the duty of care to our neighbours that we be accurate, truthful and fair, then before holding or propagating sharply adverse views, we should do due diligence to warrant them.
If we have not done due diligence but proceed to propagate such a view despite doubts we should or do have, then the view propagated — even if actually believed — is held or spread in defiance of duties of care.
I think you would agree that such a view, if it turns out to be inaccurate and harmful, is not one we can be held blameless for having spread or enabled.
I trust this helps.
GEM of TKI