Software Needs Philosophers

**Philippa Cowderoy** · Jun 11 '06, 06:55 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>[color=green]
> > If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
> > deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
> > priori provable.[/color]
>
> I think what he was getting at is that, unlike many jurisdictions, writing
> something factually true is _not_ in and of itself a defense against a libel
> suit in the UK.
>[/color]

It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true,
rather than on the claimant to show that it's false. I assume the "he"
refers to Brandon?

--
flippa@flippac. org

A problem that's all in your head is still a problem.
Brain damage is but one form of mind damage.

**Erik Max Francis** · Jun 11 '06, 07:15 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

EJP wrote:
[color=blue]
> Many states have criminal as well as civil libel.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel[/color]

The idea of using Wikipedia to back up a legal point is rather amusing
.... but still, none of the relevant parties involved live in countries
which have any form of criminal libel.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
To perceive is to suffer.
-- Aristotle

**Erik Max Francis** · Jun 11 '06, 07:15 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
[color=blue]
> It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true,
> rather than on the claimant to show that it's false.[/color]

That also depends on the jurisdiction.
[color=blue]
> I assume the "he"
> refers to Brandon?[/color]

No, I was referring to the person who he was replying to, i.e., you.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Twenty-four hours a day, three-hundred sixty-five days a year as
Secretary of Defense, I lived the Cold War. -- Robert S. McNamara

**Philippa Cowderoy** · Jun 11 '06, 07:25 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
[color=blue]
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>[color=green]
> > It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true, rather
> > than on the claimant to show that it's false.[/color]
>
> That also depends on the jurisdiction.
>[/color]

Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I assume the "he" refers to Brandon?[/color]
>
> No, I was referring to the person who he was replying to, i.e., you.
>[/color]

Wrong pronoun, then.

--
flippa@flippac. org

Society does not owe people jobs.
Society owes it to itself to find people jobs.

**Erik Max Francis** · Jun 11 '06, 07:55 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?[/color]

I don't believe so.
[color=blue]
> Wrong pronoun, then.[/color]

Well, your comment was challenged, and I offered a reasonable
interpretation of what you might have meant (which indicated a more
general point in any case, namely that libel law is not quite as simple
as the original poster was making it out to be). If you don't wish to
defend your position, that's fine, but pointing fingers is kind of weird
at this stage.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
To perceive is to suffer.
-- Aristotle

**Philippa Cowderoy** · Jun 11 '06, 08:05 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
[color=blue]
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?[/color]
>
> I don't believe so.
>[/color]

My statement was intended in the context of UK law - I have to admit to
not knowing too much about what's different north of the border beyond the
infamous verdict though.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Wrong pronoun, then.[/color]
>
> Well, your comment was challenged, and I offered a reasonable interpretation
> of what you might have meant (which indicated a more general point in any
> case, namely that libel law is not quite as simple as the original poster was
> making it out to be). If you don't wish to defend your position, that's fine,
> but pointing fingers is kind of weird at this stage.
>[/color]

I'd still appreciate being referred to as "she" rather than "he" though.

--
flippa@flippac. org

'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself...
Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms

**Erik Max Francis** · Jun 11 '06, 08:15 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'd still appreciate being referred to as "she" rather than "he" though.[/color]

Oops, my bad. Never occurred to me after all these years, which is kind
of embarrassing, actually :-).

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Isn't jumping of a bridge / Free fallin'
-- Sandra St. Victor

**EJP** · Jun 11 '06, 10:45 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Erik Max Francis wrote:[color=blue]
> EJP wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Many states have criminal as well as civil libel.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel[/color]
>
> The idea of using Wikipedia to back up a legal point is rather amusing
> ... but still, none of the relevant parties involved live in countries
> which have any form of criminal libel.[/color]

OK, OK, just proffered as information, not a conclusive proof. It's the
*courts* that back up legal points of course, not anything said or found
here.

**Mike Schilling** · Jun 11 '06, 03:05 PM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

"Erik Max Francis" <max@alcyone.co m> wrote in message
news:qKmdnUvjhO ZZKRbZnZ2dnUVZ_ r-dnZ2d@speakeasy .net...[color=blue]
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
>> deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
>> priori provable.[/color]
>
> I think what he was getting at is that, unlike many jurisdictions, writing
> something factually true is _not_ in and of itself a defense against a
> libel suit in the UK.
>
> As for the reverse side of the issue, in jurisdictions where it _is_ a
> defense, if one were to accuse him of being a pedophile but couldn't prove
> it, that would certainly be an actionable offense.[/color]

In the U.S, for instance, you wouldn't have to prove it. It would be
sufficent to demonstrate that there's enough evidence supporting it that you
weren't reckless in writing it.

**George Neuner** · Jun 11 '06, 10:25 PM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 06:05:22 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschillin g@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Philippa Cowderoy" <flippa@flippac .org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.WNT. 4.61.0606110548 540.1652@SLINKY ...[color=green]
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I'm not aware of any definition of libel that includes "making statements
>>> that are not provably true".[/color]
>>
>> I believe UK law uses one that's close to it.[/color]
>
>If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
>deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
>priori provable.[/color]

DISCLAIMER - I AM NOT A LAWYER

In the US, the defense against a libel claim is to prove the statement
or accusation is true.

In the US, libel involves damage to someone's reputation by means of
deliberately false statements or accusations. Expert opinion is
explicitly protected from libel claims unless it malicious.
Non-expert opinion is generally judged on the intent of the author.
Unprovable supposition is generally held to be non-libelous, however
unprovable accusation is not allowed.

Moreover, in the US, political figures are explicitly denied some (but
not all) libel protections because it is expected that their actions
will cause some measure of public dissent.

I don't know UK defamation law but I suspect it is quite similar to US
law. In your polite example, your opinion of Tony Blair's policy
would be unprovable supposition at the time of the writing (as would
Blair's own) and would therefore not be libelous. However, if your
opinion took an accusatory tone saying, for example, that he was
increasing the public deficit to line his pockets, then you had better
be right.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

**Robert Hicks** · Jun 12 '06, 12:05 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Erik Max Francis wrote:[color=blue]
> Mallor wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I know I'm coming late to the barbeque. In passing, I ask: do you have
> > an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
> > crimes? Because libel is a crime.[/color]
>
> No, it is a tort.
>[/color]
Can I have whipped cream and strawberries on that tort?

:Robert

**Surendra Singhi** · Jun 13 '06, 07:15 AM

Re: Xah Lee network abuse

Its not Xah Lee, who abuses the system.

But people like "Erik Max Francis" and "Philippa Cowderoy" who carry on
nonsense discussions across mailing lists.

--
Surendra Singhi

http://ssinghi.kreeti.com

Software Needs Philosophers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment