How does Freedom of Speech contend with Defamation?

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Freedom of Speech is an absolute by its nature, a negative liberty which exists as a facet of man's nature, a principle that one shouldn't suffer consequences for what they say under the pretext that words are harmless, and for centuries shitty people have tried muzzling it with nonsense like obscenity laws, hate speech laws, fighting words, "misinformation," the fairness doctrine, and so on. Free speech is the great equalizer, and I can't think of a single thing that could make freedom of speech genuinely harmful.

Except for calumny.

People like Vordrak harass people out of their jobs by ruining their reputations to their bosses, and has successfully gotten people fired through slander and libel. When the truth comes out that Vordrak is a court ruled defamer, the news falls on deaf ears and no one gives a shit. The United Kingdom has no free speech protections, yet ironically Vordrak is freely able to slander people without consequence.

It's probably safe to say at this point that all of us hate the press, they report by telephone, lie continuously about every subject they talk about and consistently get basic facts wrong. We've experienced this first hand on the forum with every press outfit uniformly reporting the same erroneous press kit given to them by Keffals which allege with fully ignorant confidence that the site drives people to suicide and has already driven three to four (depending on which journo you ask) people to suicide already.

These lies from both parties had far reaching consequences for those who were a target of them, to the point that Cloudflare colluded with criminal behavior due to public response pressure. What's worse than the press still somehow holding influence is that people believe the press still somehow holds influence.

So then, how does freedom of speech reconcile itself with defamation?

The first argument I've seen is that defamation laws actually impedes the public's ability to discern truth from falsehood, or to even begin contemplating it, in that it creates a pretext that an absence of a defamation lawsuit means the allegation is indeed true. Further, that reputation is not the property of the subject, but of each individual who holds the opinion of the subject, since the opinion varies from person to person and couldn't reliably be identical across everyone that consumes the same calumny. Someone's opinion of a subject is their property and not the subject's. If there were no defamation laws, people would have less reason to believe anything reported or rumored at face value than they would where there is a truth-bearing law set in place to weigh fact from fiction, and this absence of a token litmus test would force people to be more discerning and dissecting of what they're told to be true. In the marketplace of ideas, the truth will naturally beat the lie and defamation laws create an artificial monopoly on truth.

Another argument suggests that freedom of speech does not exist in a vacuum, but is one facet of freedom, and that defamation is a corruption of freedom of speech used with the intent to impede on other liberties such as the right to property and the pursuit of happiness. This opinion expresses that defamation is not defined as freedom of speech but of fraud, no different from counterfeiting money or copyright infringement. Defamation exists to destroy rather than to create, and the subject's reputation is their own property. Defamation also violates the zero-aggression principle, in that defamation is an attack on a person's character rather than their person, with the intent of torturous interference and poisoning the well on future prospects. This personal right to reputation could extend to things like someone putting your company logo on poisonous materials sold as food for the purpose of damaging your company's reputation.

This next argument suggests that freedom of speech and the First Amendment exist for the pursuit of truth, and therefore calumny is not a facet of free speech, but its antithesis. This argument stipulates that no one owns what is true, and that principle extends to the government, for the authorship of truth is the vacuum of reality, therefore a given narrative spun by the government is not free speech because it is not the truth. The court system exists for the purpose of scrutinizing narratives and extracting the truth despite the presence of lies to determine who is guilty or innocent of what crime, and not to invent its own narrative on the truth (failures to uphold this principle notwithstanding). This take on free speech is one in which freedom of speech is mutually exclusive to lies.

However, who is to say that freedom of speech concerns itself with truth at all? The Stolen Valor Act was designed to punish those who lie about having served in the military, inflating someone's own reputation rather than defaming it, and it was struck down by SCOTUS as violating the First Amendment, as the First Amendment makes no exception for lies.

The contention of defamation laws is that they are by nature a facet of constrained safety whereas freedom of speech is a facet of dangerous freedom, and the two are at mutual odds, because what if a truth is passed off as defamation? Kiwi Farms has been the subject of lolsuits claiming libel where the contended speech is either opinion or a statement accompanied by archived empirical evidence.

Believe it or not, the United Kingdom used to actually be worse about defamation and its free speech vacuum than it is today, where any criticism of authority was considered defamation, even in spite of the expressed opinion being based in demonstrable truth, to the point the phrase "the greater the truth, the greater the libel" was coined. Defamation trials in the United Kingdom were treated as criminal trials rather than civil suits. This is a great example of defamation laws run amok, in which the law leans into constrained safety rather than dangerous freedom.

And then there's the matter of the press getting basic facts of Kiwi Farms' history wrong, is it a provable, willful act of malice, or just pure incompetence and laziness? Does their false reporting meet the actual malice standard?

How does freedom of speech solve for the defamation conundrum? How do we rectify the good of free speech against the bad of defamation? Do we somehow divorce the two, or reconcile their differences in some way? How do we prevent defamation proving itself to be justification for limited speech, becoming the lynchpin argument for those who want to further laws against "hatespeech," "obscene" language and dissent against authority?

 

[Otis Boi]

I think deformation really comes down to the speech being targeted at a specific person for a period of time. Usually with the goal of causing social or finical harm to somebody and most of things you say about the person or false or rumors.

I think it really comes down to it being targeted at a single person. I think there is a vast difference between "I hate niggers" and calling someones job and saying they employ a pedophile, rapist, or racist. Hoping they get fired.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Does the presence of defamation render freedom of speech imperfect or is the imperfection of defamation in those who use it?

As far as I'm concerned, defamation is the only possible blemish on freedom of speech there is. How we treat and deal with it is my concern. How do we go about rectifying this blemish?

 

[draggs]

The US had a pretty good system before NY Times v Sullivan destroyed the balance between freedom of speech and protection against defamation

 

[Press_Play2002]

As far as I'm concerned, defamation is the only possible blemish on freedom of speech there is. How we treat and deal with it is my concern. How do we go about rectifying this blemish?

The best way to combat and rectify falsehood has always been through the individual's demand for evidence. Never through censorship. The best way to combat negative and horrible speech has always been through the use of positive and helpful speech. That's why SCOTUS made the correct decision to strike down the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional. Because the chilling effects of criminalising falsehoods, be they written or spoken are far worse than allowing said valour and bullshittery to persist. Part of the reason why this forum exists is because of this unspoken and unwritten doctrine: Document and Combat Cringe and Hilarious Lolcow Nonsense with Discussion from A Distance. Or in layman's terms: Fight with Words and Mockery

Because if there's one thing people like Lucas Roberts, Sam Collingwood-Smith, Robert Chipman, and even people with any shred of success who already have a thread here like Randy Pitchford and Tara Strong (people who are unlikely to end up in the dumps any time soon) detest, is that the things we as users of this forum type in public on a minute-by-minute basis is 100% Correct, objective and backed up with terabytes of evidence. More speech is better than less speech. So what if people's right to talk is being muffled by children shouting and screaming, let them scream and shout, allow them to fuck up and make an arse of themselves. The adults can talk elsewhere about the children's behaviour, their speech has not been infringed upon, but expanded upon by the actions of others.

Allow the liar and defamer to talk, write and mouth themselves into a corner and laugh at them for doing so. Because that's all a liar CAN do: Talk the talk, they never walk the walk.

Though what I'm typing here isn't the end-all solution to your concern, nor is it meant to be one. This is merely an answer, a reply, based on my short and insignificant time spent alive as a young adult. Answered as best as I can with what little experience I DO have/lack.

 

[Wormy]

Allow the liar and defamer to talk, write and mouth themselves into a corner and laugh at them for doing so. Because that's all a liar CAN do: Talk the talk, they never walk the walk.

The only problem with that is that people then believe them and act upon it. What do you about them?

 

[Netizennameless]

You can deal with defamation by legalizing dueling again.

 

[Ponzo]

If i say that you are a child molester it can be defamation, if i say that in my opinion you come off as a child molester, its freedom of speech.

 

[Satchels_of_Gold]

Freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment covers a lot, but there are exceptions. These include:

- Blackmail
- Child pornography
- Incitement to commit violence ("Fighting words")
- Perjury
- Obscenity (Which is pretty fuckin' subjective)
- Soliciting crimes
- Defamation (including slander & libel)
- Commercial speech (false advertising, ads that encourage illegal activity/serve substantial govt. interest)

But yeah, a lot of it comes down to whether you have the money & resources to sue the perpetrator which is fucked. Document everything & see if anyone's willing to take your case. Some lawyers will do a free 1st consultation over the phone or work pro bono. Not a ton though.

 

[Wormy]

If i say that you are a child molester it can be defamation, if i say that in my opinion you come off as a child molester, its freedom of speech.

The latter is still a grey area, as it can cause just as much harm as straight up saying someone is a chomo. Not near as easy to win a case over it, but not impossible either.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

- Child pornography

I wouldn't even consider that speech, and I don't see why other people do either.

 

[Wormy]

I wouldn't even consider that speech, and I don't see why other people do either.

Would you consider any form of pornography speech though?

 

[DiscoRodeo]

Freedom of Speech is hyperbolic. I can't think of any serious philosophers, especially in the enlightenment, who believed in absolute speech.

Freedom of Idea is the big issue, not speech. The benefit of freedom of speech or more properly idea is that you can criticize the government, when people are making horrible choices (ie, lockdowns) you can criticize this without getting arrested (unless you are in Canada) and you can otherwise voice a myriad of different opinions that are the backbone of any thriving democracy.

Rather than have an unaccountable monarch or oligarchy that only listens to one opinion, and said opinion is dangerously running you off of a cliff (one child policy, for example), many opinions should be voiced, and without fear of being gulag'd.

Freedom of speech in the absolute doesn't exist. The most ready example people pose is "you can't yell fire in a movie theatre," because, well- for obvious reasons.

On freedom of speech and defamation, it violates freedom of speech, but it has little to do with freedom of ideas, Im actually pretty indifferent. Even with defamation, I honestly think its a slippery slope.

For example: It may be defamation to call Joe Biden senile... but what if he is senile? What if doctors have been bought off, what if he is not "scientifically senile" but we all know he's been off over the past few years and while hyperbolic, it fits.

I'm somewhat fine with defamation, if it is allowed to be challenged; because only stupid people will blindly follow one side or one set of "facts". Maybe thats what liberals wanted with "fact checkers" but said social media position was so off the deep end and incredibly biased or unwanted in several areas, that it became a joke unto itself. People should have the ability to "fact check" things for themselves, and come to honest appraisals. For example of the kind of joke fact checking that we had "No sweetie, routers found that Joe Biden wasn't senile, that it instead was early stage dementia, check your privilege".

I don't even think that we should or need social media fact checkers, but instead I would just hope that people would try to be unbiased about things and read from different sources to get nuance, and to maybe stop treating politics like being in a sports team. We shouldn't need social media moderators to tell us what is fact and what is fiction, we should be able to figure that out ourselves if we're being honest. Of course, it doesnt help when companies like google, fb, tiktok, etc actually suppress and curate their feeds and search results based on their own politics (ie, at the height of covid, searching for lableak theory on google would result on "heres why the lableak theory is fake") instead of general information.

The other problem here is, a lot of people are also, well, stupid and want to their sports team to be right.

So how do you protect from the mob? Well, thats where individual liberties come in, the right to refuse the jab if you want, to have your own home and be the ruler there, etc. You cant have freedom of ideas/speech without other freedoms, you have to take the total package, or you run into huge problems, honestly. You also should have a culture that respects individual liberties. You can be hired and fired for anything, but it should be something that has to do with the job functions you are responsible for, not politics. Thats the way it seemed to be prior to the 2010s, at least. We seemed to understand that a difference of idea or opinion was a crucial thing for a properly functioning democracy.

I honestly think that political opinions should be protected under some sort of amendment and an otherwise "dont ask, dont tell" approach should be taken in the workplace, because politics has very little to do with being a starbucks barista or welder or CSR.

But on freedom of speech? Say what you want, or don't; but let people actually have the important part of the concept- freedom of idea.

The big part of defamation for me that is a problem has more to do with loss of income or opportunity, and on that- if you can prove it, I think suing for "malicious attempts to deny income or opportunity" can be fair and not contrary to free speech.

 

[Wormy]

You can be hired and fired for anything, but it should be something that has to do with the job functions you are responsible for, not politics.

If you're working at a store I own and start calling customers Niggers, I'm going to fire you, and your "Freedom of Speech" is not going to change that.

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

Defamation has 2 important traits: firstly it is untrue and secondly it is injurious.
Calling a pedo a pedo is not defamation, and randomly accusing someone of being a pedo if there is no meaningful harm isn't defamation.

Well technically harm is a bit of broad terms, I guess your feelings could be hurt and that could be considered harm but in the legal sense harm is usually in some way monetary (probably owing to the fact that the court cannot fix your reputation but it can award you money).
So from the legal perspective an example would be if someone makes false allegations that you're a pedo, others believe this and you lose your job or lose business then you are entitled for compensation.

This is where I personally see the dividing line and that is practical real world action.
Magic does not exist, by extension neither does chants and incantations. So in principle words cannot by merit of being spoken alone do any sort of harm or impact the world. It's action that does that. I've always been fine with their being legislation around doing within reason.

Now sure you could make the argument that speech can lead to action, but not all speech leads to action. There is no 1 to 1 correlation, so you'd be infringing upon speech on the off chance that someone might take some action and that seem to be a bit too far for me.
I guess the real problem comes in with who gets to decide which speech is potentially harmful or not, but I don't even think we need to take it to that level just saying that speech does not always lead to action should be sufficient if we already outlaw the harmful action. I'm not a big fan of pre-crime.

Would you consider any form of pornography speech though?

Pornography would be expression not speech (although speech would be a form of expression). It might seem like an insignificant difference but it's basically the difference between saying something and doing something.

The most ready example people pose is "you can't yell fire in a movie theatre," because, well- for obvious reasons.

In America you can.

If you're working at a store I own and start calling customers Niggers, I'm going to fire you, and your "Freedom of Speech" is not going to change that.

Well presumably as part of the employment contract you'd set up rules of personal conduct which would outline the behaviour you expect of the employee. In that case the employee would be in breach of contract and you'd be able to break your contractual relationship and end their employment. I guess you don't have to outline rules of conduct (if you're dumb) but there would still be implied rules owing to the nebulous concept of professionalism and implied expectations of your job and role (I do think you'd be opening yourself up to legal headaches just in general if you're not explicit in your contracts though).

What's important to remember with employment is that it is a willing relationship entered by both parties and as part of creating that relationship it's fine if either side lay out stipulations. You are not owed a job and an an employer is not owed a worker so both parties come to a mutual agreement involving some give and take.
Now mind you we do live in a world where a lot of power is given to the employer (maybe wrongly so) but at the end of the day if your employer says something you don't like you can also end that relationship.

 

[Press_Play2002]

Freedom of Speech is hyperbolic. I can't think of any serious philosophers, especially in the enlightenment, who believed in absolute speech.

Freedom of Idea is the big issue, not speech. The benefit of freedom of speech or more properly idea is that you can criticize the government, when people are making horrible choices (ie, lockdowns) you can criticize this without getting arrested (unless you are in Canada) and you can otherwise voice a myriad of different opinions that are the backbone of any thriving democracy.

It is not hyperbolic, you can't express ideas without the ability to speak them, end of. The only reason why most "serious philosophers" barring Voltaire didn't support absolute speech was that they were too obsessed with civility and respecting people. The benefit of speaking one's mind is to ensure that no idea can go unchecked, as ideas are weightless. Just like words. Those who take words way too seriously (as if they hold any weight) are the real jokes here for obvious reasons. What always holds weight and water is the application of said ideas and how they are executed. A reasonable person who can self-inquire must remain vigilant against an idea's execution because execution is everything.

Furthermore, you also have to consider that NO ONE is immune to scrutiny, be it government, corporate, individual, etc. Ideally, absolute speech is not just a fundamental right to all have access to, but it should be illegal for anyone to censor anyone for any reason. However, we do not live in such a flawed, yet, understandable world, just a flawed world where people obsess over civility when being honest with others, regardless of tone is demonised because of "muh feelings". Again, the issue is actions, not words. Calling people niggers is just that, a term, a word. Only strum up the concern and alarm bells when you feel any urges to go beyond just words and into actions.

The only problem with that is that people then believe them and act upon it. What do you about them?

Focus on the ACTION, not the belief.

Something that many, many people fail hilariously and tragically in many areas, both online and offline, is the conflation of "harmful acts" with "legal, but offensive speech". Whether speech is "offensive" or "calls to incite people to do X" is irrelevant and not the issue, the issue is ALWAYS with the action, what people claim and blame outside of their immediate actions is just an excuse to rationalise their vices which urged them to inflict harm unto others. As a hypothetical scenario, I can blame poor work hours and dissatisfaction with my living conditions as a reason to shoot an executive, but the fact of the matter is that I shot someone because I was a pathetic retard who didn't improve myself and chose the lazy option of indulging on my vices and absurd beliefs instead of allowing myself the freedom to criticize my biases and ideas.

Most people who act on their beliefs do so without question or scrutiny, the point of freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas is to allow the individual to not only criticise the ideas or beliefs of others but also criticise the individual's OWN ideas and beliefs. The "rules for thee" are also applicable to "me, the individual". It's a practice that encourages self-scrutiny, not just the scrutiny of other individuals and groups, regardless of ideologues or mindsets.

 

[DiscoRodeo]

It is not hyperbolic, you can't express ideas without the ability to speak them, end of.

There's only one freedom of speech. The absolute.

Freedom of idea is that you should be able to discuss any and every idea. Freedom of speech is the same, but with the added caveat that you can yell fire in a theatre. We're just arguing semantics here, but end of.

The only reason why most "serious philosophers" barring Voltaire didn't support absolute speech was that they were too obsessed with civility and respecting people.

I dont think that this is the only reason, as absolute freedom of speech goes beyond respect, and entails some very obviously real problems, the fire in a movie theatre example being a widely quotes one.

You should be able to discuss any idea, even if it offends someone- because ideas, even contrary ones, have merit and should be cultivated so you have a myriad of options and paths to go on in society and can correct course if need to. Should you be able to yell Nigger at 5 year olds? Probably not.

but it should be illegal for anyone to censor anyone for any reason.

Doxxing your mother would fall under free speech. Is there any idea that youre discussing there though? Not really.

where people obsess over civility when being honest with others, regardless of tone is demonised because of "muh feelings".

Its not just civility, if thats a strawman. There are people who obsess over civility, but the debate on free speech isnt just about what is rude or what makes people feel bad. The function of speech (should you be able to prank call people, telling them that the police just called and your husband has been arrested for sodomy) is also considered.

What is important, is when you are discussing ideas, be it liberty, politics, the meaning of life, the merits of a concept, etc- that that absolutely must and should be allowed to continue in any and all contexts.

I dont care if people call someone else nigger, but its freedom of ideas that is really the crucial thing here, and the ability to discuss them.

It goes back to old chan culture. If every board just devolves into people calling eachother nigger, I really dont give much of a fuck about going against it, or saving that part of "free speech culture" conversely. Its the kind of edgy that is so typical, its become almost non-offensive to anyone on the internet before smartphones became the norm. Trite and cute, I guess.

You can also see how an excess of spam (imagine going to an imageboard daily, only to see non-stop nigger post) can destroy a board as well, but would fall under the umbrella of free speech. On the other hand, if its an idea that someone is discussing, even if its a reprehensible idea, we need to protect that at a basic level.

Freedom of ideas, vs freedom of speech

We always put limits on speech. Maybe a board is dedicated to anime, so things must be related to the topic. Maybe its "civility" as you highlight multiple times. Maybe its to stop spam. Maybe its because, while it falls under free speech, people can take information to do "actions". Maybe because the free speech is defamatory.

We have more free speech, or tend to- but its always limited for pretty good reasons, depending on the context.

What you should never limit, and what should be respected though, is freedom of idea. When youre discussing concepts, ideas, etc- there should be no limitations on that.

 

[Rungle]

Freedom of speech is saying that you think someone is a pedophile.

Defamation is saying people are pedophiles without evidence that they are.

 

[Press_Play2002]

You can also see how an excess of spam (imagine going to an imageboard daily, only to see non-stop nigger post) can destroy a board as well, but would fall under the umbrella of free speech. On the other hand, if its an idea that someone is discussing, even if its a reprehensible idea, we need to protect that at a basic level.

Except most of the internet is composed of spam and useless junk. And for the best part of 25-30 years, nothing has been derailed completely to the point of unusability as a result of that fact. Again, you can't have the free exchange of ideas without freedom of speech. And most importantly, you can't defend an idea without being able to criticise and mock it on a basic level.

Part of what makes speech so important is the ease of communication from one person to another, building on our biological traits as a social species, when that is stifled, connections to others are compromised and we become more anti-social as a consequence. It follows that speech and ideas are weightless tools for this purpose of communication. Person B may have the right to cease communication, but Person A additionally has the right to lament and lambast Person B's decisions in the form of speech, regardless of civility.

What is important, is when you are discussing ideas, be it liberty, politics, the meaning of life, the merits of a concept, etc- that that absolutely must and should be allowed to continue in any and all contexts.

This is correct, however, in order for that to work, you must allow scrutiny and criticism to also flow. Even in the case of your own ideas and beliefs. Authoritarian people generally permit their ideas but ONLY their ideas without tolerating any scrutiny, satirization, analysis or inquiry. Which jams a nasty wedge into the legs of Liberty.

It's here where people need to be at their highest level of awareness. When someone tries to position their thoughts over others and deny any criticism of said ideas.

We always put limits on speech. Maybe a board is dedicated to anime, so things must be related to the topic. Maybe its "civility" as you highlight multiple times. Maybe its to stop spam. Maybe its because, while it falls under free speech, people can take information to do "actions". Maybe because the free speech is defamatory.

Defamation has a very specific legal term in most nations, including the US and the UK. And most importantly, Truth is an absolute defence. One cannot assume that speech is defamatory or vice versa. Rather, one can only treat it as neutral speech until evidence proves it to be false or true.

Furthermore, even boards dedicated to something like animation have subthreads for other topics because discussing a single subject is dull as shit and cripples the forum/board's ability to expand. The whole point of free exchange is to have as many people engage in it as logically and realistically as possible. Diversity is our strength after all. And those who limit speech are not to be trusted.

(For example, a common theme amongst many people of interest/lolcows documented on this forum alone have a consistent track record of limiting and restricting speech, some even outright publicly promote censorship)

And as for people going beyond speech and proceeding to use these ideas as a rationalisation to commit acts of violence, this is an issue of the people who engage in such actions, not the idea. Why? Because they didn't bother scrutinising the idea even once, blindly accepting it as dogma/gospel. Which is antithetical to free exchange. As exchanging ideas, much like exchanging goods, requires the ability to assess and inquire about the quality and integrity of the idea, this is done through criticism and mockery.

The overall thesis that I am positing and presenting is not "Freedom of Speech vs Freedom of Ideas" as that implies conflict between two concepts that rely on each other to function properly. Rather, I present and uphold the more peaceful and Liberty-based practice of "Freedom of Speech + Free Exchange of Ideas".

 

[DiscoRodeo]

Except most of the internet is composed of spam and useless junk. And for the best part of 25-30 years, nothing has been derailed completely to the point of unusability as a result of that fact.

4chan has been derailed completely to the point of unusuability as a result of that fact.

Again, you can't have the free exchange of ideas without freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech would be in the absolute and include things such as defamation, spam, or yelling fire in a movie theatre. You can have freedom of ideas without all three.

And most importantly, you can't defend an idea without being able to criticise and mock it on a basic level.

Yes, so you need a certain level of free speech, but as its always relative and we are debating semantics (again): freedom of speech= no limits on speech. As soon as you have limits, its not free speech.

You can, however, have no limits on ideas, under a limited free speech that allows everything except someone spamming a board up or yelling as loud as you can.

Defamation has a very specific legal term in most nations, including the US and the UK. And most importantly, Truth is an absolute defence. One cannot assume that speech is defamatory or vice versa. Rather, one can only treat it as neutral speech until evidence proves it to be false or true.

If speech is determined on whether it is truthful, and if theres a moral category to it "good speech, neutral speech, bad speech", there's justified speech, ergo limited speech by whether its true or not.

A good way to manage speech is through containment boards, etc- but the moment you have a limitation on speech in an area, it plays into just that. Speech has become limited, justifiably so, but still limited.

Freedom of ideas, be they the ideas being discussed in a board, etc, should never be infringed.

The thesis Im highlighting is that freedom of speech is a contradictory concept and one that doesnt exist in its true sense, but that freedom of ideas actually can exist in its extreme.

We can both agree that you need a certain level of free speech to have free ideas though