Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

restrictions on speech?

Rate this topic


Mnrchst

Recommended Posts

Should there be restrictions on speech? I'm not talking about in someone's home (they can tell you to leave), but anywhere (the government uses force against you). For example, should you be punished for writing a letter to the president that says "I'm gonna kill you!"? What about "slander"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force and threats of force are both categorized as crimes. Slander is a civil wrong resolved by a civil suit, not a crime. Libel is the same as slander, except it involves written and printed material.

This is correct and good. This would continue to be the law in a more objective and Objectivist world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He answered your question. What kind of pompous attitude assumes that this is not HIS thinking on the matter?

There's a pretty standard convention on this forum: when people start a thread and ask for people's opinions on something, we're also implicitly asking for justifications for those opinions. So far, all Grames has said (other than informing me of the fact that there are laws restricting speech, which I never asked about) is "This is correct and good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a standard convention on this and all other forums, and for all other forms of writing and speaking, that the opinions expressed are the author's own. The exception to this is so remarkable and important that it has its own convention: quoting.

I gave my own opinion. There should be no restrictions on speech beyond threats and slander/libel, and those restrictions are valid.

I suppose if i stretch my imagination I think of more things that might be described as "restrictions on speech": protecting classified information, 'no-compete' clauses in employment contracts, intellectual property, judicial 'gag' orders and sealing of records, injunctions in general. There are probably more.

What is your real question, the one you haven't asked yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your real question, the one you haven't asked yet?

Why should there be any restrictions on speech (or, more appropriately, communication/expression)? By what standard do you judge when someone should get forced used against them for their expression and when they shouldn't? Why is it aggression/similar if I write a letter to the president saying I'm going to kill him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threats are restricted because they are acts of force. A more pointed question is to ask is "why are threats acts of force?"

Not all threats are acts of force. Usually in discussing this subject it is assumed that the threat is of the specific type that is an act of force. The legal term of art is "terroristic threat". http://definitions.u...oristic-threat/ gives an example from Texas statutes:

TERRORISTIC THREAT

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

  • cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
  • place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
  • prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
  • cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
  • place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
  • influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

Ayn Rand explains why force and the threat of force are wrong in several quotes available at the Lexicon entry for physical force.

A stated intention to boycott a shop unless it starts to carry better merchandise, or to vote for a congressman's opponent in the next election unless he votes a certain way are not threats. See the ordinary definitions of threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be restrictions on speech, for instance in music using someone else's lyrics would be theft. But in terms of threats, no I do not think it should be censored as it is actions that are the problem, threats is to broad a term to censor as "threats to the establishments" could then be censored and we all know what that leads to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should there be restrictions on speech? I'm not talking about in someone's home (they can tell you to leave), but anywhere (the government uses force against you). For example, should you be punished for writing a letter to the president that says "I'm gonna kill you!"? What about "slander"?

Threats are not "speech" in either an epistemological or a constitutional sense - threats are force.

Slander - deliberate falsehoods about another person - are also force. They cause harm to a person's reputation with no basis in reality.

Speech means the expression of ideas - restriction of speech refers to limiting the right of someone to attempt to persuade another person. It doesn't mean standing up in a crowded room and shouting fire in order to cause a panic which could kill someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think threats are probably force (I'm open to persuasion here). If someone calls you up and says "I'm coming to kill you!", then you're going to worry about whether or not that's true, thereby forcing you to react.

I think you can argue threats are force along the same lines that fraud is force:

(this is from a pro-Rand website)

" Suppose a man reads an advertisement for a used car and goes to check it out. The owner assures the man that the car’s odometer reading is correct; this, however, is not true, and the owner knows it because he turned back the mileage himself. As far as the man can tell, though, the owner is being honest, and everything seems to be in order; so he buys the car and drives it away. But notice that the man is not driving the car he bargained for; he is not driving the car he was willing to buy. Unbeknownst to him, he is driving a different car—one with higher mileage than the one for which he was willing to pay. By lying to the man about the car’s mileage and by selling it to him on the basis of that false information, the crook has defrauded the man. Because the man’s willingness to exchange his money for the car was based partly on the crook’s lie, the crook has gained and is now keeping the man’s money against his will. In so doing, the crook is physically forcing the man to act against his judgment. By fraudulently taking and keeping the man’s money, the crook is physically preventing him from spending or saving it as he otherwise would.

Fraud, the act of gaining or keeping someone’s property by means of deception, is a form of indirect physical force. It is physical force, because, although indirect, it physically impedes the victim’s ability to act fully on his judgment. Other types of indirect physical force include extortion, the act of gaining or keeping someone’s property by distant threat of force; copyright and patent infringements, acts of misusing someone’s intellectual property (and thus impinging on his ability to act on it); slander, the act of making false statements that damage a person’s reputation (and thereby retarding his ability to act on it); unilateral breach of contract, the act of refusing to deliver goods or services one has agreed to deliver; and so forth. In all such cases, although the force is indirect, it is still physical: When and to the degree it is used, it physically prevents the victim from acting according to his judgment.

Whether direct or indirect, physical force used against a person stops him from living fully as a human being: To the extent it is used, it prevents him from employing his means of survival—the judgment of his mind. "

As for slander, I convinced that is not a crime. First of all, there's not necessarily going to be harm to a person's reputation if someone slanders (it's possible no one will believe him/her). And second, suppose your reputation is diminished. So what? It's only because a bunch of people believe the slanderer, but you're not forced to change your behavior and injured in a tangible way. If slander in the conventional sense is wrong, then what about any opinion expressed that diminishes your reputation (for example, getting demolished in a public debate, or someone saying "I think so-and-so is a terrible person because of X statement we all already know they made".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slander and libel are both torts premised on the idea that a professional reputation is traded on as a livelihood, which means it is property. Damaging that property with malicious falsehoods is the tort. See more at http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lame examples you gave of people bitching when somebody said something bad about them would not even qualify as slander. Which is why you need first to understand what kinds of things are slander and what are not.

edit: Your 'arguments' are based off of examples which are not crimes, or torts. We are talking about torts here, not crimes. But they are not about slander either, so they fail to establish anything

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames, what, then, do you think are the requirements of speech/communication in the general defamation as a tort violation and why? Is it just if they violate a contract? I'm asking (I shouldn't made this more clear, I'm sorry) about speech which is illegal under any circumstances (regardless of contracts).

The only ones I can think of are which seem bad to me are threats, and distribution of information which involved a violation of privacy and/or child pornography. Should there be more? (i.e. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which I have no problem with, unless there's a rule by the owner not to do that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earlier link gives a good overview of the requirements:

A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court: First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement. Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message. Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.

Defamation means injury to reputation. The concept of a reputation is the key concept of defamation law. I went looking for where I got the idea that reputation was property, but couldn't remember where I originally got it. So here is a newer and good overview of the subject.

Post, Robert C., "The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution" (1986). Faculty Scholarship Series.

Paper 217. (53 pages)

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/217/

The first case covered by Post is reputation as property, and it is most applicable to a 'market society' which is the ideal society in my opinion as an advocate of Objectivism. Common law is old however, and has retained aspects of older conceptions of 'reputation as honor' and 'reputation as dignity'. The legal precedent is somewhat of a mishmash but I am confident that the combination of 'reputation as property' plus objectivity is the valid basis from which a proper legal system could sort out the issues.

A commercial example of defamation would be a dentist accused of having some contagious disease which causes his patients to cancel their appointments. If there was an identifiable source or merely primary disseminator of the rumor such as a newspaper article or a television news report, then the dentist could sue that entity for the loss of business as damages.

The Everyday Law Encyclopedia also noted the defenses against defamation:

There are four general defenses to slander and libel. Truth is an absolute defense. Consent by the plaintiff for the publication of the defamatory statement is a defense. Accidental publication of the statement is a defense. Finally, the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for PUBLIC POLICY reasons. This type of protection is known as privilege.

If the dentist actually has the disease reported then he will lose his suit despite the fact that the damages are just as real. Objectively, the dentist's loss of business is caused by the disease not the people who spread the news. If the dentist did not have a disease and lost business due to the defamatory reports then the cause can only be those people who spread the false reports, and the dentist should win the suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" If the dentist did not have a disease and lost business due to the defamatory reports then the cause can only be those people who spread the false reports, and the dentist should win the suit. "

That's the only thing which appears to justify this. I don't see that as making sense. The problem isn't that people spread false reports--it's that people believed them.

Let's say I'm a popular newspaper columnist and I write that the newest line of cars from a major manufacturer are going to explode after a couple years of use. Should I be punished for this? Where do we draw the line? How outrageous does the claim have to be before we stop caring?

And why should I be punished if a lot of people believe me and not be punished if no one does? Either way, I did the same thing. Therefore, my punishment depends on what OTHER people did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" If the dentist did not have a disease and lost business due to the defamatory reports then the cause can only be those people who spread the false reports, and the dentist should win the suit. "

That's the only thing which appears to justify this. I don't see that as making sense. The problem isn't that people spread false reports--it's that people believed them.

Yes, but those people have a right to think and to act as they do. No matter why they withhold their business they can never be legally-objectively faulted for it. Epistemologically and morally they might be wrong, but the the law is restricted to dealing with improper uses of force including fraud.

Let's say I'm a popular newspaper columnist and I write that the newest line of cars from a major manufacturer are going to explode after a couple years of use. Should I be punished for this?

It depends. Are you right? Can you prove it?

Where do we draw the line? How outrageous does the claim have to be before we stop caring?

Draw the line when there is no damage. Tabloid stories about "the bat-boy" or space aliens attending meetings in the White House do not have an impact on anything.

And why should I be punished if a lot of people believe me and not be punished if no one does? Either way, I did the same thing. Therefore, my punishment depends on what OTHER people did.

That is as it should be. It is the same for any fraud. Force is a kind of relationship between two or more people. There should not be a law against using a knife, there should be a law against using a knife on another person. Indirect force depends on deception at some point, so it depends on if other people are fooled. In a division of labor society such as we live in we trust the opinions of various professionals. Abusing a position of trust makes it all too easy to fool people.

It is intrinsicism to think certain acts are always wrong or always right regardless of circumstances (context). What makes a crime or a tort objectively provable is the consequences.

edit: 'to' to 'too'

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draw the line when there is no damage. Tabloid stories about "the bat-boy" or space aliens attending meetings in the White House do not have an impact on anything.

Wouldn't this mean that if people believed such things, that those who published the material should be punished even if it's incredibly stupid. And wouldn't damage be done if just one person behaved irrationally as a result? And how can we prove they wouldn't have behaved exactly the same anyway if the info wasn't published?

It is the same for any fraud. Force is a kind of relationship between two or more people.

I definitely agree fraud is a crime, but I think it only applies when there's a contract. In other words, if I sign a contract with someone where they're obligated to tell me what they think is the truth, fine. Otherwise, where is the fraud if I tell people things I believe not to be true?

Also, just so we're on the same page, we're only talking about when people know they're telling things they don't believe (and when there's the "reputation damage"), right? Like, if someone actually thinks X is true, then it's OK for them to tell people? Or is it fraud if they spread lies they think are true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't this mean that if people believed such things, that those who published the material should be punished even if it's incredibly stupid. And wouldn't damage be done if just one person behaved irrationally as a result? And how can we prove they wouldn't have behaved exactly the same anyway if the info wasn't published?

One person believing a lie is not legally objective damage. Let me rephrase that to get to the essence: mere belief can never constitute damage. Actions in the world with material and financially measurable consequences should be the prerequisite for finding any damage done. Even then, only the person who suffers the damage can sue (has legal standing, locus standi). The people who change their behavior or purchasing decisions because of false information cannot be faulted, because first of all both alternatives in a purchasing decision are lawful and secondly those people do not have the intent to harm the plaintiff (the dentist in my earlier example) but rather an intent to protect themselves (and self defense can excuse much up to and including killing), and thirdly the law must presume the deceived do not give their consent to being deceived.

It is not necessary to second guess what deceived people might have done in the absence of the deception if there is a historical pattern of prior actions. The default expectation is that they would proceed in the same way in the future as in the past.

I definitely agree fraud is a crime, but I think it only applies when there's a contract. In other words, if I sign a contract with someone where they're obligated to tell me what they think is the truth, fine. Otherwise, where is the fraud if I tell people things I believe not to be true?

Here is a convenient list of types of fraud. Where is the contract in counterfeiting? Or in false advertising? Or forgery? Or identity theft? The answer is: there is no contract in those examples. Therefore the presence of an explicit contract is not an essential of the concept of fraud.

Also, just so we're on the same page, we're only talking about when people know they're telling things they don't believe (and when there's the "reputation damage"), right? Like, if someone actually thinks X is true, then it's OK for them to tell people? Or is it fraud if they spread lies they think are true?

The definition of fraud given in the first sentence of the Wikipedia page is: "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;" Defamation is not a matter of criminal law but of civil law, so intentional deception is not necessary. Liability for damages in civil law can be established by the negligence of the defendant, for defamation that could mean failure to properly research an allegation or misinterpreting a report. Accidents are also not intentional but incur liability.

(There are also few areas of the law that have a standard of strict liability, where nothing need be proven other than the defendant caused the damages. Defamation law is not one of those areas so put that aside.)

I wiill quote myself from another thread to cover something basic: the three kinds of law.

Further elaboration of the difference between civil and criminal law continued in the thread Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads. In post #91 I defined three areas of law covering three ways to initiate force: crimes, torts and criminal fraud.

Crimes are initiated force that intentionally and violently overcomes the non-consent of the victim to inflict a loss. Crimes are defined by public laws and apply to everyone.

Torts cover violations of agreements made in good faith or accidental infliction of losses. The loss is necessary and the violence may or may not be present but the intent to inflict harm is absent or not relevant. The agreements or contracts involved only cover the parties to the agreement.

Criminal fraud covers agreements made in bad faith by one party where there was always the intent to violate the terms. The violence may be absent but the harm and intent to inflict harm remains.

A government because of its monopoly on retaliatory force is unconditionally obligated to respond to crimes and criminal fraud. The government does not get involved in torts until after a judge has decided the case and there is noncompliance with the judgement. The government's role as an arbiter of last resort between parties in some (not all) types of torts is precisely the function which Ayn Rand proposes to sell on a per-contract basis with proposed contract fee in "Government Financing in a Free Society". Criminal cases are always a defendant versus the state as accuser, and would not be conditioned on a payment of any sort either to have a case brought or to avoid one.

Policemen exist to keep the peace by enforcing the law. The law is constituted of the legislated statute law and judicial directives in particular cases. Police do not enforce contract law, contracts which they have no way of knowing about nor power to arbitrate. Government does not have an unconditional obligation to enforce contracts because contracts are not law either in origin or scope. It is valid to conditionally grant the "force of law" to valid contracts (no slave selling or assassinations) upon payment of a fee.

Defamation is a tort and there it is technically unnecessary to get inside the mind of the defendant to prove intent to harm. (The U.S. Supreme Court did add a malice requirement to prove defamation if the defendant is an elected official (New York Times v. Sullivan) or 'public figure'. I'm not convinced this was justified, and suspect it is flat wrong but haven't puzzled it out yet. The modern practice of "the politics of personal destruction" date from this case in my opinion.)

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actions in the world with material and financially measurable consequences should be the prerequisite for finding any damage done...

It is not necessary to second guess what deceived people might have done in the absence of the deception if there is a historical pattern of prior actions. The default expectation is that they would proceed in the same way in the future as in the past.

If you can't demonstrate what would have happened if X hadn't happened, then you can't say X is bad.

You're basically saying "Person A spreads falsehood about person B, and as a result, persons C and D stop buying stuff from person B, therefore, person A committed a crime against person B, but, if no one stopped buying from person B, then person A didn't commit a crime." The problem with this argument is that person A's actions did not damage person B, even in the sense that person B is less well off, because what actually made person B less well off were the actions of persons C and D. Persons C and D made a choice based off their available information (including person's A falsehoods). There is no objective crime by person A against person B--how can you demonstrate it? Persons C and D are ultimately responsible for the business effects on person B.

Furthermore, if the crime is doing things that diminished person B's business, then I don't see why this couldn't include straight-up competition with person A.

You might argue that it's the damage to the person's reputation that is the crime, and not damage to their business. Well, if a bunch of people stop thinking highly of you because of a bunch of falsehoods, the blame ultimately lies with them--they don't have to believe it. Furthermore, I certainly don't think those people have committed any crime--no one owes anyone else a high opinion of them (politically speaking). Finally, I see no objective means of measuring one's opinions of another.

As for your point on historical patterns, it doesn't matter--you have to demonstrate the damage. You can't demonstrate it if it's possible (however unlikely) that persons B and C would have believed the accusations of person A even if person A never actually made them--people can believe all sorts of things for any variety of reasons.

Where is the contract in counterfeiting? Or in false advertising? Or forgery? Or identity theft? The answer is: there is no contract in those examples. Therefore the presence of an explicit contract is not an essential of the concept of fraud.

I never said it had to be explicit.

Anyway, where's the implicit contract between me and everyone else in society that I'm going to always tell them what I believe to be the truth? The examples you gave are obvious examples of implicit contract violation because they involve sales and/or threatening law and order (i.e. impersonating a cop). Why do I owe it to everyone else to not attempt to damage someone's reputation by spreading what I believe to be falsehoods (at least when it's "successful enough")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...