Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[jj-]

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?

if it is, so is saying something false that damages someone's property.

 

[sailingaway]

if it is, so is saying something false that damages someone's property.

If it is knowingly false or recklessly so, it is aggressive.

If you say something nasty about someone knowingly, how do you feel when you are doing it? "This will get them!" or something? I mean, don't you feel inside that it is wrong and you are being aggressive? If it is true, it is their own fault, but if it isn't....

 

[green73]

Without reading the thread: No.

 

[jj-]

If it is knowingly false or recklessly so, it is aggressive.

If you say something nasty about someone knowingly, how do you feel when you are doing it? "This will get them!" or something? I mean, don't you feel inside that it is wrong and you are being aggressive? If it is true, it is their own fault, but if it isn't....

If it's aggression, it's also aggression to say something truthful that damages someone's property, and telling true statements that damages someone's property should be penalized as well.

 

[sailingaway]

If it's aggression, it's also aggression to say something truthful that damages someone's property, and telling true statements that damages someone's property should be penalized as well.

I disagree because the statement contents originated with the person it is being said about, not with the person who says it. If you make it up it originated with you. I think the right to speak the truth trumps there.

 

[sailingaway]

However, libel initially was actionable whether it was true or not, under common law, so maybe the old courts in England saw it your way.

 

[Reece]

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?

People have the right to speak both truly or falsely. A similar question could be asked: "How is it not aggression to truthfully say something about someone you know is true and will hurt them?"

The answer to both of these questions is simply because it doesn't force the other person to do anything with their property, and doesn't change what property the other person has. Me writing on my piece of paper that you are an evil thief does not stop you from doing what you want with your property. However, you forcing me to not write that you are an evil thief would be aggression against me.

Now, of course I agree that it is morally wrong for me to make these false claims against you.

 

[green73]

Perhaps relevant:

 

[sailingaway]

People have the right to speak both truly or falsely. A similar question could be asked: "How is it not aggression to truthfully say something about someone you know is true and will hurt them?"

The answer to both of these questions is simply because it doesn't force the other person to do anything with their property, and doesn't change what property the other person has. Me writing on my piece of paper that you are an evil thief does not stop you from doing what you want with your property. However, you forcing me to not write that you are an evil thief would be aggression against me.

Now, of course I agree that it is morally wrong for me to make these false claims against you.

look at my response above. I think truth is a right, not maliciously making up lies.

 

[green73]

Oh Sailing, someone who speaks falsehoods only hurts themselves.

 

[Reece]

look at my response above. I think truth is a right, not maliciously making up lies.

So what you're saying is the right to speak the truth is a higher right than the right to your reputation?

 

[sailingaway]

Oh Sailing, someone who speaks falsehoods only hurts themselves.

No, if they show a photoshop of you with another woman to your wife, destroying her trust and ruining your marriage, it hurts many people. Only some damages are recognized by law in any event, mostly punitive if it is really terrible, or if you damage a business or income etc. But that goes to what damages are allowed in law, not whether it is right or wrong.

 

[sailingaway]

So what you're saying is the right to speak the truth is a higher right than the right to your reputation?

I'm saying you are only entitled to the reputation you actually have, not the illusion you may have projected. But I might be willing to go the other way too, I do think you have a right to speak the truth.

 

[green73]

No, if they show a photoshop of you with another woman to your wife, destroying her trust and ruining your marriage, it hurts many people. Only some damages are recognized by law in any event, mostly punitive if it is really terrible, or if you damage a business or income etc. But that goes to what damages are allowed in law, not whether it is right or wrong.

Of course that hurts them. They lose all credibility when it's proven it's a photoshop, that the accused was not there.

 

[sailingaway]

Of course that hurts them. They lose all credibility when it's proven it's a photoshop, that the accused was not there.

If they can prove it. If he leaves a copy and doesn't just show it to her and walk away with it leaving her reeling.

In this media age there is no way to get your proof in front of all the people who saw the initial photoshop since those things are spread much more widely than any later clarification.

 

[Reece]

I'm saying you are only entitled to the reputation you actually have, not the illusion you may have projected. But I might be willing to go the other way too, I do think you have a right to speak the truth.

Entitled to other people thinking the truth about you, or writing the truth about you (or both)? If I don't have to think the truth about you, and I own my paper and pencil (and myself), why can I not express my thoughts on my paper?

 

[sailingaway]

Entitled to other people thinking the truth about you, or writing the truth about you (or both)? If I don't have to think the truth about you, and I own my paper and pencil (and myself), why can I not express my thoughts on my paper?

Your expression is an action that impacts others your thoughts are inside you and you can think anything you like. You can THINK the most vicious lie all day and it won't impact your target.

 

[Reece]

Your expression is an action that impacts others your thoughts are inside you and you can think anything you like. You can THINK the most vicious lie all day and it won't impact your target.

But impacting others negatively is not aggression necessarily. If I don't buy from your store, you will be worse off than if I did buy from your store. I might even not buy from your store for reasons that are not true. While this isn't good for you, it also isn't aggressing against you. Now, on a larger scale, suppose I said that your store was selling poisoned food. Just because some people don't buy from your store does not make me an aggressor.

 

[green73]

If they can prove it. If he leaves a copy and doesn't just show it to her and walk away with it leaving her reeling.

In this media age there is no way to get your proof in front of all the people who saw the initial photoshop since those things are spread much more widely than any later clarification.

Organizations who pass along falsehoods would have no credibility. They get away with it today because challenging them is an onerous and costly prospect for the accused. That is why outfits like the NYT and Wapo get away with murder, so to speak. Get rid of libel laws and the bullshit express would die. Listen to the Walter Block video I posted above.

 

[sailingaway]

They should be non credible now in that case. Why do so many believe them? They have the big trumpets.

I do understand your arguments, I just come down differently on this.