Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually you're the one repeating yourself by inventing a "right" that doesn't exist. Answer this question: what is "reputation"? Why do you have a "right" to have an "unsullied" one?

Please, please, PLEASE read what I'm writing. I've never said a person has a right to an unsullied reputation - that's a strawman argument you've been repeating for the past three pages. I've said a person has a right to a reputation unsullied by FALSE accusations.

Get it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Goal post moving as usual. Anyway, I brought up Zenger for this reason:

Perhaps you'll understand then why slander and defamation cases on behalf of public figures, officials and powerful organizations (like the RCC) are disfavored in American law (probably you still won't get it, but hey I tried).

Understand yet?

I understood why you brought up Zenger and your reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. You've argued yourself that fundamental rights are independent of any particular nation's interpretation of them. Just because the US denied black slaves many fundamental rights till the mid-19th century does not mean they did not have them. Likewise, just because the US disfavours public figures, officials and "powerful" organisations due to various historical and sociological reasons does not mean that such a position is correct.

That's why I said reason should be judge - not history.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please, please, PLEASE read what I'm writing. I've never said a person has a right to an unsullied reputation - that's a strawman argument you've been repeating for the past three pages. I've said a person has a right to a reputation unsullied by FALSE accusations.

Get it?

ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHY?

You're making two rather ridiculous errors in your posts:


One, you are confusing someone's interest in not having themselves thought of as a vile, dastardly cookie stealer with them having a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to it. This is no "strawman" (learn another word); this is YOUR position. Please give SOME justification for such an extraordinary position. And I mean the position cited: that not only do you have an interest against "false" statements regarding you because other people might think badly about you, but that you have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to NOT have others make "false" statements about you that MUST be enforceable in a court of law.

Second, even if you have such an interest/right that does not mean that every organization you chose to join also has such a right. Despite being asked several times, you've failed to point out what possible REAL harm could come to a member of the RCC because of something someone writes about that organization. If someone writes the US government knew about 9/11, should the US government be allowed to sue them to protect my "right" to not have an organization that I have some connection with from being "falsely" accused of something? This position you are arguing leads logically to such idiotic results.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I understood why you brought up Zenger and your reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. You've argued yourself that fundamental rights are independent of any particular nation's interpretation of them. Just because the US denied black slaves many fundamental rights till the mid-19th century does not mean they did not have them. Likewise, just becau ...[text shortened]... that such a position is correct.

That's why I said reason should be judge - not history.

What a joke. For three pages you argued that Zenger was irrelevant because the judge in Zenger said the truth of the allegations was not material. NOW, Zenger is irrelevant because you say so. US law is more protective of speech in these matters than any other I know of and is being presented as a paradigm. It is up to you to present some reason why the present US law, shaped by the attitudes of the Framers to who Zenger was a living memory, is faulty. You've dismally failed to do so, except to keep repeating over and over again that people have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to a reputation, a position which is intellectually incoherent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHY?

You're making two rather ridiculous errors in your posts:


One, you are confusing someone's interest in not having themselves thought of as a vile, dastardly cookie stealer with them having a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to it. This is no "strawman" (learn another word); this is YOUR position. Please give SOME justif ...[text shortened]... f something? This position you are arguing leads logically to such idiotic results.

One, you are confusing someone's interest in not having themselves thought of as a vile, dastardly cookie stealer with them having a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to it. This is no "strawman" (learn another word); this is YOUR position.

For the last time - it is indeed a strawman and it is not my position. Please, please, PLEASE learn to read.

Despite being asked several times, you've failed to point out what possible REAL harm could come to a member of the RCC because of something someone writes about that organization.

It's quite amusing how you follow this sentence immediately with the example of 9/11. There's as clear an example as you want for "REAL harm" coming to people simply by virtue of association with an organisation (in this case, the government). And, if that can happen in the absence of false allegations, do I need to spell out for you what happens with false allegations? If one of your "unlimited free speech" friends decides to publish allegations that the US Army in Iraq is engaged in a genocide of the Sunnis, followed by a cover-up, would you like to explain to your fellow-American soldiers how no "REAL harm" can come to them?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a joke. For three pages you argued that Zenger was irrelevant because the judge in Zenger said the truth of the allegations was not material. NOW, Zenger is irrelevant because you say so. US law is more protective of speech in these matters than any other I know of and is being presented as a paradigm. It is up to you to present some reason why the ...[text shortened]... people have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to a reputation, a position which is intellectually incoherent.

Have you even been reading what I'm writing?

For three pages you argued that Zenger was irrelevant because the judge in Zenger said the truth of the allegations was not material.

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? Please quote where I've said anything about the judge in Zenger. Please quote where I've said anything about the judge saying the truth of allegations was not material. Please quote where I've said anything about Zenger being irrelevant for these reasons. This is just plain dishonesty on your part to claim I said anything about these things.

If anything, I supported the (final) finding in Zenger that the truth of allegations was, indeed, material.

You've dismally failed to do so, except to keep repeating over and over again that people have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to a reputation, a position which is intellectually incoherent.

Here's another example - I didn't say that people have a right to a (presumably you mean favourable) reputation. You're the one repeating it and alleging I'm claiming it - when I'm not.