Re: OT: Religious Hatred

DAB sounds worse than FM goes:

Alan Hope wrote:
Thanatos goes:
DAB guy:
If you are against any limitations on freedom of speech then you
MUST be able to argue the case against there being ANY libel laws.

No, because if someone holds up a placard saying "X is a paedophile!"
without any evidence, then they're falsely stating something as fact
(not an opinion, so no freedom of expression is involved) which could
harm X's reputation, and X has every right to pursue them through the
courts over it.

It's important also to remember that libel is a battle between one
individual and another (on the whole). The purpose of the laws are not
to stop you saying what you want, but to provide that the person who
suffers damages thereby can have some redress.

What is the point of having a law if it is not to dissuade someone from
carrying out something that is against the
law??????????????????????????????????????????????????

There's no point if the illegal activity does not cause any harm. If
incitement to murder does not lead to murder, then why bother
criminalising it?

So you are free to say what you like.

What a ridiculous argument. Short of glueing someone's lips together
people are obviously free to say whatever they like, but if whatever
they've said breaks the law then they can be charged under, for example,
incitement to murder/terrorism/racial hatred etc, or be sued for libel.

But the law is inevitably used as intimidation to suppress legitimate
expression. It has happened and will continue to happen in all the
cases you mention. The introduction of new laws is just a way of
strengthening the anti-freedom arsenal. There's no evidence more
people are being incited to murder now than before. There's no
evidence there's more racial or religious hatred around than
previously. New laws on those subjects are unnecessary, except as
further means of suppressing dissent. Think what you like of Abu
Hamza, it's ludicrous that his crimes in *saying things* were
sufficient to merit seven years, when there are serious criminals who
*do things* and get less.

But you may have to either
justify it or pay the consequences. It's a case of "my freedom to
swing my fist freely stops where your nose begins".

Yeah, it's like Abu Hamza's freedom to incite would-be terrorists stops
once he's started saying whatever he's saying, you ***.

No. Because a libel plaintiff has to show the alleged libel had an
effect. and he has to show damage. The state does not have to show any
such thing in Hamza's case. Where are the people who were incited?
What did they actually do?

So, he's not
actually free to say it in the eyes of the law. And nor does someone
have the freedom to libel others in the eyes of the law.

Libel can only be proven if there's a victim. It's a civil matter:
somebody has to be hurt before the offence exists. But incitement
statutes are enforced by the state on behalf of ... well on behalf of
whom, exactly? Where are the people who were damaged by Hamza's
statements? Where are the people he incited? What form did the effect
of his words take?

Nothing has to be proved. So you could never know if you'd committed
the crime until you were charged and tried. How could you avoid
inciting someone to murder? There's no way of knowing. Since it's a
victimless crime, there are no real criteria.

That's quite a different matter from a state-sanctioned law enforced
by the police which punishes you for statements you make. Whereas the
libel law requires the plaintiff to show hurt and damage,

http://www.channel4.com/fourdocs/about/defamation_libel.html

"WHO HAS TO PROVE WHAT?

In libel actions, the burden of proving the truth of the allegations is
on the party that makes the allegations. The fact that a story is true
is not, therefore, enough. Can the story be proved to be true?"

and

http://www.cab.org.je/072407.htm

"Definition of defamation

2 This is a false statement made by one person about another which
involves some imputation (accusation) which discredits that person's
character, reputation or credit worthiness. A defamatory statement must
be communicated to at least one person other than the subject of the
statement. It can be communicated by, for example, spoken or written
words, or by photographs, cartoons or effigies. In other words it can be
communicated in any way in which meaning can be conveyed."

I don't see anywhere that the plaintiff has to prove that the libel has
*actually* resulted in something negative happening as a result of the
libel.

What do you think "discredits that person's character, reputation or
credit worthiness" means? Something has to happen before a libel case
can start. Not so with incitement. The speech itself is the beginning
and end of the offence. It need have no consequences whatsoever.

For example, if a newspaper accuses a politician of being a liar, as it
says above, the burden of proof is on the newspaper to prove that the
allegation is true, and it is implied that being accused of being a liar
damages the politician's reputation.

No, first the plaintiff has to show that the statement is in fact
defamatory. So if someone were to sue after being described as "gay",
they would need to show that being called gay is defamatory in this
day and age. Only then would other issues come up.

Truth is a *defence* to libel. Then you're saying, "yes, I did make a
defamatory statement, but I was justified in doing so because it's
true". You admit defamation, but claim justification. And as with any
defence, the defendant has to prove it.

incitement
laws are thought crimes pure and simple: you could still be tried even
if your words had no effect whatsoever.

Where's the difference between the examples of a libellous statement
being published in a newspaper and a statement that incites people being
published in a newspaper? In both cases it could be impossible to show
that anybody reading the statement has been effected by the statements,
yet both people making the statements can be taken to court.

Nonsense.


--
AH


.

Loading