Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Yeah. Freedom of speech and association suck. /sarc

 

[jj-]

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.

More accurately, basic authoritarian stuff. Assuming people are idiots and will believe things without evidence, and that the government should protect them from themselves.

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah. Freedom of speech and association suck. /sarc

demagoguery again.

KNOWINGLY FALSE AND DAMAGING expressions against another suck, yeah.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

I posted Pericles' post in its entirety. You can find it, back on page, uhh, let's see, oh here we go, Page 1.

The only question he asked in said post, I answered quite clearly. The answer I gave was "Yes".

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I wonder if sailingaway, whos obviously a plant on RPF sent here to divide us on this issue, is going to demand money from me and beat me up and extract it when I refuse.

If he does it just proves he's a plant. He doesn't want the truth out, the shill! We must remain vigilant and watch his actions closely.

 

[Reece]

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.

This is sort of getting out of the discussion of "rights" and into the consequences of getting rid of these laws.

And, on that topic, these things happen with these laws in place. Why should we think they would be more likely to occur without these laws? In a free society, media companies may voluntarily agree be subject to the decisions of an arbitrator if someone brings a case against them, in order to show that they are being honest. Since these arbitrators could lose their own reputation at any time (and no company would want to use an arbitrator with a bad reputation), they would have to try to stay honest in their decisions. This is far more than can be said for the government system.

Even if they do not decide to be subject to arbitration in such cases, they will still be held accountable by competition. Even today, the mainstream sources of news are losing influence (mainly due to the internet, which the government has little control over).

 

[acptulsa]

More accurately, basic authoritarian stuff. Assuming people are idiots and will believe things without evidence, and that the government should protect them from themselves.

The government isn't protecting anyone from himself with libel, slander and defamation laws. Indeed, it isn't even protecting the rich from the poor, considering it's civil and a civil judgement against someone who's broke doesn't really mean anything.

These laws allow a company or a professional to protect himself, herself or itself from an unscrupulous competitor. They've been around for several centuries now, that this seems to be how they work out.

 

[jj-]

They've been around for several centuries now, that this seems to be how they work out.

What an argument. Can't stop laughing.

 

[jj-]

These laws allow a company or a professional to protect himself, herself or itself from an unscrupulous competitor.

If some professional stops making money because I don't buy something from him after you lied about him and I believed you, then I lose too. So the government is protecting me from myself. Regarding the professional, he doesn't have a right to have me as a customer. I can decide to stop buying from him for a good reason, a stupid reason, or no reason at all, so he doesn't deserve any protection whatsoever to protect his right to have me, or anyone, as his customer, because that right doesn't exist.

 

[sailingaway]

I wonder if sailingaway, whos obviously a plant on RPF sent here to divide us on this issue, is going to demand money from me and beat me up and extract it when I refuse.

If he does it just proves he's a plant. He doesn't want the truth out, the shill! We must remain vigilant and watch his actions closely.

Of course you are concerned about that because it is so consistent with my argument and other actions on here.

 

[acptulsa]

What an argument. Can't stop laughing.

I wasn't arguing. I was telling you what these laws do. I don't know how you could decide if you want these laws, or if you want them gone, or if you want someone other than government to handle them, if you have no clue what the hell they are and why the hell they're there.

If some professional stops making money because I don't buy something from him after you lied about him and I believed you, then I lose too. So the government is protecting me from myself.

Yes. Hell no. Yes, you lose too. No, the government is attempting to protect both the professional and you from my lies, not your gullibility.

Unfortunately for you, only the professional gets to collect from me.

Regarding the professional, he doesn't have a right to have me as a customer. I can decide to stop buying from him for a good reason, a stupid reason, or no reason at all, so he doesn't deserve any protection whatsoever to protect his right to have me, or anyone, as his customer, because that right doesn't exist.

Who the hell said he did? I sure as hell didn't. And neither does the government. If the professional is diligent about protecting his reputation, you may not have any logical reason not to trust the professional. But you're entitled to all the silly-assed reasons in the world why you don't trust that professional. What's more, if your reasons are not based on falsehoods, but merely silliness, you can tell everyone and his dog and the professional can't sue you for it. 'You shouldn't do business with him because I'm a silly ass' isn't harmful to his reputation.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I have a right to these expression's absence, yes?

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

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?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Of course you are concerned about that because it is so consistent with my argument and other actions on here.

Wait, so you're using free speech to counteract my "lies"??



BLAST YOU!!!

 

[sailingaway]

This is sort of getting out of the discussion of "rights" and into the consequences of getting rid of these laws.

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

 

[jj-]

I wasn't arguing. I was telling you what these laws do. I don't know how you could decide if you want these laws, or if you want them gone, or if you want someone other than government to handle them, if you have no clue what the hell they are and why the hell they're there.

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

 

[sailingaway]

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?

you edited out all my statement about not restricting speech in advance but being responsible for results if it was knowingly or recklessly false and damaging.

 

[jj-]

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

You're making a great case for McCain-Feingold. I thought I was in the Democratic Underground for a second.

 

[sailingaway]

You're making a great case for McCain-Feingold. I thought I was in the Democratic Underground for a second.

Not at all. I'm not giving government a claim nor saying you can stop true expressions. Without mccain feingold if someone ran an add knowing it was libelous and it caused damages, they would be responsible.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

you edited out all my statement about not restricting speech in advance but being responsible for results if it was knowingly or recklessly false and damaging.

I edited it out because we're already agreed on that and it's a sidenote to the main track. I had nothing interesting to say about it. Just "yeah, that's true". Look, there's a reason you see my trap from a mile away. It's because: there's no trap! You've already preemptively addressed this multiple times. You don't want to restrict speech in advance. I get it, I really do.

I'm not laying a trap. I'm trying to figure out, logically, incontrovertibly, what you think about reputation, what I think about reputation, and what the truth is. And what everyone else on the thread thinks too, for that matter,

 

[sailingaway]

It's because it's a sidenote and we're already agreed on that. Look, there's a reason you see my trap from a mile away. It's because: there's no trap! You've already preemptively addressed this multiple times. You don't want to restrict speech in advance. I get it, I really do.

I'm not laying a trap. I'm trying to figure out, logically, incontrovertibly, what you think about reputation, what I think about reputation, and what the truth is. And what everyone else on the thread thinks too, for that matter,

I think when you build something you have rights in it. Others may have conflicting rights, sometimes, say if you build on their property or whatever. But you have some equitable right. 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.