Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[noneedtoaggress]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

Hey guys, I heard sailingaway was a democratic socialist.

 

[jj-]

..

 

[noneedtoaggress]

He's a plant. Obviously. A shill for the empire.

 

[sailingaway]

Hey guys, I heard sailingaway was a democratic socialist.

Demagoguery?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Maybe he's CIA.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Demagoguery?

See he's trying to divide us!!!!

 

[sailingaway]

I keep looking for a substantive response, but see none.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

OK, we're moving along and making progress. We know some things now, I feel like. So, first, what I own and have a right to defend is not the facts. Now the facts are what I worked for and built up with my actions, just as you said. But they're not my property. They're just facts. No one can possibly change them. So they need no defense. They're in the past, and thus immutable.

Second, what I own and have a right to defend is not the thoughts of other people. That would be outrageous. People have a right to think whatever they wish.

So we're narrowing it down. It sound like you are putting forward "FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION" as a candidate for what it is exactly that violates this property called reputation. That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I keep looking for a substantive response, but see none.

Are you going to beat me up?

 

[jj-]

The whole idea is ridiculous. As if the government stating noneedtoagress lied is going to change my beliefs about someone. Let me emphasize: THE GOVERNMENT stating that noneedtoaggress said something false. That would give noneedtoaggress' statement more credibility. Reputation laws are nothing but a tool of authoritarians to silence the speech of the opposition or the less powerful.

 

[sailingaway]

OK, we're moving along and making progress. We know some things now, I feel like. So, first, what I own and have a right to defend is not the facts. Now the facts are what I worked for and built up with my actions, just as you said. But they're not my property. They're just facts. No one can possibly change them. So they need no defense. They're in the past, and thus immutable.

Second, what I own and have a right to defend is not the thoughts of other people. That would be outrageous. People have a right to think whatever they wish.

So we're narrowing it down. It sound like you are putting forward "FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION" as a candidate for what it is exactly that violates this property called reputation. That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

Not necessarily only that, but including that, and I'm thinking of tort not criminal action.

 

[Reece]

It is the FALSE AND INSULTING EXPRESSION which can be expected to change perceptions, not the perceptions themselves.

Isn't this false and insulting expression part of the other person's perception and thoughts? And, if so, why can they not communicate these thoughts?

 

[acptulsa]

That, and only that, is the criminal action. Is that correct?

Oh, you came so close. You almost have the question answered.

It isn't criminal. Civil court, not criminal court. You can't go to jail for it. The worst that can happen is you have to pay restitution.

Now you're correct.

 

[sailingaway]

Isn't this false and insulting expression part of the other person's perception and thoughts? And, if so, why can they not communicate these thoughts?

You've seen it. Media goes out to hundreds of millions and your correction is only seen by a few. Plus then it is only your word against theirs and to those who don't know you they have no idea of the truth.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Not necessarily only that, but including that, and I'm thinking of tort not criminal action.

OK, very well. Let me know if you think of any other actions besides false and insulting expression which would also trespass on my right to my reputation.

So if making false and insulting expressions is the offending act, then the lack of false and insulting expressions is what I have a property right in. Is that correct?

 

[sailingaway]

OK, very well. Let me know if you think of any other actions besides false and insulting expression which would also trespass on my right to my reputation.

So if making false and insulting expressions is the offending act, then the lack of false and insulting expressions is what I have a property right in. Is that correct?

You are trying to make it exclusive, and I don't agree with that.

I do agree you would have a right to get damages for knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions of your actions

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You almost have the question answered.
...[Change "criminal action" to "civil offense".]
Now you're correct.

OK. I never did understand what your question was.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You are trying to make it exclusive, and I don't agree with that.

Making what exclusive? I do not understand. Please specify pronouns, it makes things so much clearer.

I do agree you would have a right to get damages for knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions of your actions

In other words, I have a right for people to not make such expressions. I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?

 

[acptulsa]

OK. I never did understand what your question was.

It wasn't my question, it was key to this whole thing, and you edited it out of the OP when you changed the hell out of it. But you finally thought it through so it's all good.

U.S. jurisprudence holds you have the right to seek redress if someone's lies cause you material harm. The right to seek redress. Basic civil court stuff.

 

[sailingaway]

Making what exclusive? I do not understand. Please specify pronouns, it makes things so much clearer.

In other words, I have a right for people to not make such expressions. I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?

When you say 'this and only this' would be owned that is making it exclusive.

But yes, a person has responsibility for damage caused by those knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions.

There is a difference between responsibility and prevention.