If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
What is Slander
Former Member
Posts: 1,875,648 The Mix Honorary Guru
At what point is Freedom of Speech considered Racism. At what point is Freedom of Speech crossing into Hate. Is the system which we believe in and cherish so weak as to permit a Corrupt politician to escape criticism just because he is in a wheelchair? Do we allow a military junta torturer to escape criticism because he is from a minority? Do we permit an ideology that spreads hate & fear to continue unabashed just because some famous person believes in it?
Do we allow people to escape criticism just because it hurts their feelings?
Do we permit all type of criticism just because of FoS?
FoS was not implemented and invented and followed by naive dreamers. It was not implemented as a dream Utopia that can only be reached when everyone is happy and rich. Only Totalitarians believe that their system will only work when everyone is happy and rich.
* Is FoS good at protecting everyone's right except itself?
* Does FoS has teeth?
* Is FoS incapable of criticizing and reforming or flushing an ideology that feeds on FoS to erode FoS?
It is my opinion that FoS as a system, is a very valid and workable system that can function and stand to its predator and competitor systems. FoS is not a weak system.
FoS defends itself by drawing the line at Slander or Libel. Anyone can say anything as long as they can back it up. All Western countries implemented laws, to the best of my knowledge even in the criminal statutes against Slander or Libel.
Here is what the Canadian Criminal Statute has to say against Libel:
However 14 of the following statutes are all exceptions to the above statute. All methods by which we get the right to criticize everyone including gods.
In short, as long as you reasonably believe what you say to be true, by quantifying it. If you reasonably believe what you say is for the public good and is not proven false, then you are allowed to say it.
If I go around stating n*ggers should not run for office. That is libel. First, black people can not defend themselves against such a statement. It is too ambiguous:
* Who is a n*gger? The word is not even properly defined.
* Why they can not run for office?
* There is no charge to defend against.
So such a sentence is NOT permitted to be published in the West.
NOT because FoS is so naive that it permits such a sentence if it was not for us, being vigilant and awake.
But because FoS actively prohibits the use of Libel & Slander.
If you want to say something, say it, but be specific enough to defend it. If I say "All monkeys are polygamous" I am really exposing myself to a lot of exceptions. All it takes is for one strain of monkeys to be monogamous to burn my statement.
If an ideology spreads hate & fear, then I should be able to criticize it. If I just say "Hinduism sucks", then that is not enough since no Hindu can defend himself against the charge of "Sucking".
But if I add that the caste system they use is horrible and should be abolished. Then at least a Hindu can focus his answer. And it is within the right of the Hindu within the framework of FoS, to ask me Why I am making that statement. I have to be able to answer that question, and it better be something for the public good.
Anyone can say anything in the West, but if directed at someone else, he/she better be able to defend the statement. Else it is slander & libel. and then it will usually fall under the umbrella of hate & fear & racism & misogyny & misandry etc.. etc... . As for the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we often draw a line at physical violence and murder and the courts are more lenient when it comes to criticizing ideologies.
Do we allow people to escape criticism just because it hurts their feelings?
Do we permit all type of criticism just because of FoS?
FoS was not implemented and invented and followed by naive dreamers. It was not implemented as a dream Utopia that can only be reached when everyone is happy and rich. Only Totalitarians believe that their system will only work when everyone is happy and rich.
* Is FoS good at protecting everyone's right except itself?
* Does FoS has teeth?
* Is FoS incapable of criticizing and reforming or flushing an ideology that feeds on FoS to erode FoS?
It is my opinion that FoS as a system, is a very valid and workable system that can function and stand to its predator and competitor systems. FoS is not a weak system.
FoS defends itself by drawing the line at Slander or Libel. Anyone can say anything as long as they can back it up. All Western countries implemented laws, to the best of my knowledge even in the criminal statutes against Slander or Libel.
Here is what the Canadian Criminal Statute has to say against Libel:
At first look, it seems that no one is allowed to state anything against anyone. It seems that even if Ossama bin Laden was to come to Toronto to preach about the "Joys of Jihad", we would not even be allowed to criticize the man.298. [1] A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
[2] A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
[a] in words legibly marked upon any substance; or
by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
However 14 of the following statutes are all exceptions to the above statute. All methods by which we get the right to criticize everyone including gods.
In short, as long as you reasonably believe what you say to be true, by quantifying it. If you reasonably believe what you say is for the public good and is not proven false, then you are allowed to say it.
If I go around stating n*ggers should not run for office. That is libel. First, black people can not defend themselves against such a statement. It is too ambiguous:
* Who is a n*gger? The word is not even properly defined.
* Why they can not run for office?
* There is no charge to defend against.
So such a sentence is NOT permitted to be published in the West.
NOT because FoS is so naive that it permits such a sentence if it was not for us, being vigilant and awake.
But because FoS actively prohibits the use of Libel & Slander.
If you want to say something, say it, but be specific enough to defend it. If I say "All monkeys are polygamous" I am really exposing myself to a lot of exceptions. All it takes is for one strain of monkeys to be monogamous to burn my statement.
If an ideology spreads hate & fear, then I should be able to criticize it. If I just say "Hinduism sucks", then that is not enough since no Hindu can defend himself against the charge of "Sucking".
But if I add that the caste system they use is horrible and should be abolished. Then at least a Hindu can focus his answer. And it is within the right of the Hindu within the framework of FoS, to ask me Why I am making that statement. I have to be able to answer that question, and it better be something for the public good.
Anyone can say anything in the West, but if directed at someone else, he/she better be able to defend the statement. Else it is slander & libel. and then it will usually fall under the umbrella of hate & fear & racism & misogyny & misandry etc.. etc... . As for the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we often draw a line at physical violence and murder and the courts are more lenient when it comes to criticizing ideologies.
0