Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In many countries it's illegal to say bad things about others, in print or on the internet. I personally find this pathetic.
The thing I don't understand is why someone would even feel the need to sue somebody over a nasty comment, whether it's on the internet or elsewhere. I mean what's the point? What is being accomplished? Words only hurt as much as you allow them to and anyone who thinks otherwise need to grow a thicker skin. I don't care if somebody online whom I don't even know has called me a bad name. It doesn't affect my life and only makes the person who said it look bad. I think the only real reason for why people sue is because of ego and a desire for revenge. It's not enough for them to just ignore the person who insulted them, they feel the need to destroy them as well via lawsuit.
Whenever I hear about a case where somebody sued someone or something else over comments they did not like, I always side with the person who insulted them. Not because I think they are good people, but simply because I can't stand people who feel the need to sue over mere words. Do you agree that people sue others over mere words are just cowards more than anything else?
In our country, the right to free speech is paramount, but it is balanced with the consideration of intent - whether there was negligence or malice involved.
Defamation and slander have actual definitions, and courts have proven that people don't ALWAYS just need "thicker skin" when they've been personally attacked.
I think I know what you have in mind, but you paint it with a very large brush. For example, do you think persons in positions of authority (such as teachers) should be allowed to make demeaning, sexist, racist, or vulgar comments to or about students?
In our country, the right to free speech is paramount, but it is balanced with the consideration of intent - whether there was negligence or malice involved.
Defamation and slander have actual definitions, and courts have proven that people don't ALWAYS just need "thicker skin" when they've been personally attacked.
And who decides what "slander" is? What is stopping politicians from just arresting anyone who says bad things about them for "slander"? Who decides what slander is?
And to be honest, why am I not allowed to badmouth people if I want? If I think politician or person X is a giant ass because they behave like a giant ass, why am I not allowed to just call them giant asses? I bring you this great quote which people should never forget:
"Take away the right to say **** and you take away the right to say **** the government"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpaint
I think I know what you have in mind, but you paint it with a very large brush. For example, do you think persons in positions of authority (such as teachers) should be allowed to make demeaning, sexist, racist, or vulgar comments to or about students?
Public workers are paid by the public, so it is normal that they are expected to have some kind of speech code. But if it were a private school, then yes. If the students don't like it they can go someplace else.
And who decides what "slander" is? What is stopping politicians from just arresting anyone who says bad things about them for "slander"? Who decides what slander is?
And to be honest, why am I not allowed to badmouth people if I want? If I think politician or person X is a giant ass because they behave like a giant ass, why am I not allowed to just call them giant asses? I bring you this great quote which people should never forget:
"Take away the right to say **** and you take away the right to say **** the government"
Public workers are paid by the public, so it is normal that they are expected to have some kind of speech code. But if it were a private school, then yes. If the students don't like it they can go someplace else.
Dude, these are laws that are written down. The lawmakers decide what slander is, and they are elected by ... the people.
It's even HARDER for public officials to sue because the laws are stricter when it comes to them. The burden is on them to prove, as I said earlier, that the intent of the comments was malicious, to cause harm.
You ARE allowed to badmouth people if you want, but there ARE certain lines which, if crossed, could get you into legal trouble.
Being banned from a site for negative comments or punished by a private school is totally different from having your right to free speech violated, since the first is a private business that can ban commenters at will and the second is the gov't.
You COULD look this stuff up before you go ranting for no good reason.
ALSO, I think you left a word out of your great quote. It makes no sense.
In many countries it's illegal to say bad things about others, in print or on the internet. I personally find this pathetic.
The thing I don't understand is why someone would even feel the need to sue somebody over a nasty comment, whether it's on the internet or elsewhere. I mean what's the point? What is being accomplished? Words only hurt as much as you allow them to and anyone who thinks otherwise need to grow a thicker skin. I don't care if somebody online whom I don't even know has called me a bad name. It doesn't affect my life and only makes the person who said it look bad. I think the only real reason for why people sue is because of ego and a desire for revenge. It's not enough for them to just ignore the person who insulted them, they feel the need to destroy them as well via lawsuit.
Whenever I hear about a case where somebody sued someone or something else over comments they did not like, I always side with the person who insulted them. Not because I think they are good people, but simply because I can't stand people who feel the need to sue over mere words. Do you agree that people sue others over mere words are just cowards more than anything else?
I think you are using too wide a brush as well.
Defamation of character and slander are tangible harms which can affect one's ability to work, in addition to social problems. It's one thing for an anonymous person to call another anonymous person a "child molester"....quite another if the accusation is to a verifiable person who happens to be entrusted with kids for their employment...such as a daycare worker. And if all of the parents pull their kids out of that daycare workers place because they aren't taking any chances...even if there was no validity to that verbal attack...where does that leave us? Essentially we could all "troll" people we harbor ill feelings towards and potentially ruin careers and families.
In the US, defamation and slander laws help to discourage this type of behavior. It's not the easiest thing to prove either, so just because you can bring about a lawsuit for anything...it doesn't mean you'll win it. But when it is more serious than just name-calling or unpopular speech, and has real damage it is a good thing that there are ways to rebut untrue allegations.
It's not just calling someone an idiot, defamation is actively working to defame and ruin a person's reputation with a lie. This is why doxxing in addition to threats can be very serious.
I don't think people sue that often, if anything it would be companies and really famous people suing, because they have a reputation to uphold.
They could grow a thicker skin, however you can't control other people's perceptions.
Lastly you're welcome to have any opinion you want.
"I think Donald Trump is an idiot." (although the more I think about it even though I don't agree with him, he's shaking things up, but I digress...) There you go I spoke my mind and no one's going to arrest me.
That's because OPINIONS are relatively protected.
Now if I said, The Donald raped and murdered his wife in cold blood in 1978 and I have the proof that says this....then that can border on defamation. Especially if I really tried to prove it and I KNEW it was false. (This is NOT true as far as I know. )
If this came out and I had a substantial audience, and there was a possibility that his poll numbers along with his reputation went down, wouldn't you think he'd have a right to sue me?
And who decides what "slander" is? What is stopping politicians from just arresting anyone who says bad things about them for "slander"? Who decides what slander is?
And to be honest, why am I not allowed to badmouth people if I want? If I think politician or person X is a giant ass because they behave like a giant ass, why am I not allowed to just call them giant asses? I bring you this great quote which people should never forget:
"Take away the right to say **** and you take away the right to say **** the government"
Public workers are paid by the public, so it is normal that they are expected to have some kind of speech code. But if it were a private school, then yes. If the students don't like it they can go someplace else.
You are guaranteed the right to speak your mind in the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances First Amendment.
Defamation laws protect people from untrue, damaging statements. They provide important recourse for people whose careers, reputations, finances and/or health have been damaged by the harmful statements. However, defamation law often intersects with laws that protect freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So, just as it is important to protect people from the harms that untrue statements may cause, it is also important to protect speakers so that they may speak freely without fear of reprisal. This is a delicate balance and it is often at the forefront in cases involving libel (written defamation) or slander (oral defamation).
You can read more in the above article about the tension between free speech and slander.
The thing is, you don't want someone slandering you, do you? So, you shouldn't be slandering someone else. If you don't know what the meaning of slander is, well you can look it up. In fact you could have, yourself, looked up free speech on your computer or mobile device.
But limits on speech are not limited to slander. How it was illustrated to me years and years ago, is you can alert people to fire, but you absolutely cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater that has no fire. That kind of speech is wrong, and probably illegal.
And who decides what "slander" is? What is stopping politicians from just arresting anyone who says bad things about them for "slander"? Who decides what slander is?
First of all, slander is not the same thing as libel. Slander is oral defamation. Libel is printed or broadcast defamation, including the use of photos. As for who decides what constitutes both, that would be lawmakers and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has seen to it that while people can sue willy-nilly, that doesn't mean they'll win. Jerry Falwell learned that the hard way.
There, you just learned, in one message board post, the gist of what every journalism major spends an entire semester studying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lawmakers decide what slander is, and they are elected by ... the people.
) 
