Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[Reece]

I was responding to a particular question about why couldn't it just be countered with true statements.

My two questions were:

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?

To which you replied with that statement. I didn't bring up anything about countering them with true statements, although I don't disagree that countering the statements with the truth would work well. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post (or you misunderstood mine)?

 

[sailingaway]

My two questions were:



To which you replied with that statement. I didn't bring up anything about countering them with true statements, although I don't disagree that countering the statements with the truth would work well. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post (or you misunderstood mine)?

Sorry, I misread your 'they' as referring to the person being slandered responding.

 

[acptulsa]

OK, so if I have a right to a lack of knowingly or recklessly false and damaging expressions, let's call them KRFD expressions, if I have a right to the ongoing absence of KRFD expressions in the world, that means I have the right to restrict the content of people's conversations. Would you agree with that? They must not have conversations containing KRFDs. Who is "they"? (Look at me, breaking my own advice and using pronouns). They is everyone. There is no one in the world who would be in the right to make KRFDs about me. Any of them doing so would be in the wrong. I have a right to have everyone in the world refrain from making KRFDs about me. Am I correct so far?

American jurisprudence merely says that if it isn't political and you're not a politician, and you suffer financial losses over it, you have the right to seek redress for it. You can't stop them from saying what they will, but you can make them pay you for whatever harm you can prove they caused you.

LOL. I know perfectly well why they're here: authoritarianism, aversion to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

No, or they'd have been applied to political speech from the first. Instead, Jefferson and his allies caused generations of would-be tinpot dictators to come endless consternation by making political speech in the U.S. exempt from libel and slander laws. No, or they'd have been applied even to truthful statements from the first. Truthfulness has always been a defense in libel and slander cases. Ignorance is a dangerous thing--it makes it hard to differentiate a clear and present danger from your basic non-issue.

Confused enemies is good. Your own confusion is bad.

 

[Anti Federalist]

In what way has aggression been committed against me if someone runs around telling scurrilous lies about me?

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread

 

[jj-]

Exchange of ideas is not a good method of determining the facts. The best method to determine what the facts are is having the government step in when someone says something that is wrong. That's the argument of the authoritarian side represented here.

Also, the damage to reputations by falsehoods only is possible if people act like idiots and are willing believe things without evidence. The people here proposing to write laws under those assumptions are proof that government brainwashing is working really well.

Another unintended consequence is that the willingness of people to act like idiots and believe things without evidence is left unchallenged. Professionals get the stolen money. If not, they probably would've done something when they realized how dangerous it is to live surrounded by idiots, but he does nothing because he has his stolen money.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I think when you build something you have rights in it.

No, we ruled that out. We're beyond that. I thought we were beyond that. The thing I built was the facts. That edifice of good actions and honorable life which one builds up by his effort and self-control. Like for instance, what Ron Paul built by being faithful to his wife for 56 years was: the fact that he was faithful to her for 56 years! Along with experiencing a long happy marriage and everything else that resulted from that fact. No one can go back in time and change the fact that he was faithful. That was his action. That was what he built. It's invulnerable to any attack. Past events cannot be changed, only misreported.

So maybe Ron Paul "owns" the fact that he was faithful, or "owns" the last 56 years of happiness he experienced with his wife. Certainly I'm sure those memories are one of his most valuable possessions. But those facts and memories are not taken away from him if someone makes KRFDs. Those facts receive no protection from the law, and indeed need none. Because again, they're invulnerable. No one can damage that property, if it is property, without building a time machine. So it doesn't really matter whether Ron has a right in it or not. Because it's a right that absolutely cannot be violated. It's impossible.

Do you agree with all this?

Others may have conflicting rights, sometimes, say if you build on their property or whatever. But you have some equitable right.

And it's up to careful and methodical thinking to determine exactly what that right is.

And I don't think it is less important in building the truth of your reputation, I actually think that is MORE important than less personal things you build.

I agree. As I say, I'm sure his relationship with his wife is many a man's most prized and important possessions.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think suing for damages based on actual damage to you from libelous acts is any more the government stepping in then suing someone for driving their car through your window and refusing to pay for it.

I do believe courts to enforce rights are a proper role of government.

 

[sailingaway]

No, we ruled that out. We're beyond that. I thought we were beyond that. The thing I built was the facts. Like for instance, what Ron Paul built by being faithful to his wife for 56 years was: the fact that he was faithful to her for 56 years, along with experiencing a long happy marriage and everything else that resulted from that fact. No one can go back in time and change the fact that he was faithful. That was his action. That was what he built. It's invulnerable to any attack. Past events cannot be changed, only misreported.

So maybe Ron Paul "owns" the fact that he was faithful, or "owns" the last 56 years of happiness he experienced with his wife. Certainly I'm sure those memories are one of his most valuable possessions. But those facts and memories are not taken away from him if someone makes KRFDs. They receive no protection from the law, and indeed need none. Because again, they're invulnerable. No one can damage that property, if it is property, without building a time machine. So it doesn't really matter whether Ron has a right in it or not. Because it's a right that absolutely cannot be violated. It's impossible.

Do you agree with all this?

And it's up to careful and methodical thinking to determine exactly what that right is.

I agree. As I say, I'm sure his relationship with his wife is many a man's most prized and important possessions.

Actually, I believe they can be tainted if his wife is told lies about him, with false photoshop or something. I don't know if that precise kind would get more than punitive damages under damages laws, though.

 

[acptulsa]

Exchange of ideas is not a good method of determining the facts. The best method to determine what the facts are is having the government step in when someone says something that is wrong. That's the argument of the authoritarian side represented here.

No, what was said here is that government civil courts are willing to hear civil suits concerning libel and slander--and have since this nation was formed. No one ever went to jail over it. And the burden of proving the facts lies with the litigants, not the government.

Also, the damage to reputations by falsehoods only is possible if people act like idiots and are willing believe things without evidence. The people here proposing to write laws under those assumptions shows the government brainwashing is working really well.

I haven't seen anyone propose to write laws in either this thread or the one that spawned it. I was merely describing laws that have been on the books for generations.

Another unintended consequence is that the willing of people to act like idiots and believe things without evidence is left alone. The professionals get the stolen money. If not, they probably would've done something when they realized how dangerous it is to live surrounded by idiots, but he does nothing because he has his stolen money.

I have no clue whatsoever what the fuck you're trying to say.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

"Hello 911? I just saw Chris Dorner go into Helmuth Huberner's house!! They are working together! I just heard gunshots!! Come quickly!!"

/thread

In which case the aggression depends on how police react to this information.

Is the aggression by the man giving an incorrect report, or the police who don't approach the situation rationally and charge in guns blazing?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

But either way that doesn't have to do with whether reputation is property.

 

[sailingaway]

In which case the aggression depends on how police react to this information.

Is the aggression by the man giving an incorrect report, or the police who don't approach the situation rationally and charge in guns blazing?

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

 

[sailingaway]

But either way that doesn't have to do with whether reputation is property.

true, but it shows speech is an action with consequences in a way that the person just thinking the same thought would not have been.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

You're pushing the responsibility off the police. Which is exactly what they want.

They need to do their job properly and correctly identify when force should be applied. Period.

 

[sailingaway]

You're pushing the responsibility off the police. Which is exactly what they want.

They need to do their job properly and correctly identify when force should be applied. Period.

no, this particular statement just said that it was a forseeable consequence that making that false statement could lead to someone getting shot.

I absolutely agree that the police should try to take suspects alive for trial and not shoot unless needed to protect themselves or the public, and certainly not without knowing what target they are shooting at.

 

[acptulsa]

regardless, guns are likely to be blazing and people are likely to die, from what we've seen with trucks.

So if someone did this, knowing it was a lie, intending to get back at HH for not agreeing with him on the definition of rights or something, would that be non actionable?

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.

 

[jj-]

I have no clue whatsoever what the fuck you're trying to say.

It wasn't directed at you, anyway. It was written for people still trying to make up their minds, not established apologists of the nanny state.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

demagoguery again.

Nope.

KNOWINGLY FALSE AND DAMAGING expressions against another suck, yeah.

As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.
btw, you also have to prove your positive claim-present the proof that a reputation is property and/or slander and libel are serious enough to be criminal.

 

[sailingaway]

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.

I agree that this isn't exactly libel and slander. someone in another thread mentioned that the reason Rothbard could argue against libel being actionable is that he confined his determinations to thoughts and didn't recognize EXPRESSION of lying and damaging thoughts as an action. That tended to support what I had been saying earlier, but it is indeed off topic.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

no, this particular statement just said that it was a forseeable consequence that making that false statement could lead to someone getting shot.

And a guy could have been lying about his friend taking a dump in a stall at a nightclub when he was really doing drugs and could lead to someone standing in line and getting in a fight and eventually someone getting shot in the parking lot afterwards if it escalates.

The people at fault are still the people initiating violence and shooting at each other when they shouldn't be.