Should it be illegal for the news media to lie?

[whYNOT]

My laziness always looks for the simplest solution. Am I being over-simplistic

by demanding nothing more from a limited government than that it protect

individual rights?

It is not my right (surely?) to NOT be lied to. By any source.

When government enters here, (honesty and truth) it is not enforcing individual rights, but morality.

Morality is not the business of g-ment. Let the reader beware.

[DonAthos]

P.S. Are you claiming that your reputation is your property?

This is a topic about which I continue to find myself confused/uncertain. If you're interested in looking at it, not too very long ago I participated in a thread that dealt with this very matter. Perhaps some of that discussion will shed some light on the present one?

[Nicky]

I'm not going to address your post entirely, because I don't have the time to do so right now and I recognise that I've caused some people some frustration in the past with quick toss off replies that I never come back to.

I do want to point out since you brought it up though that legally reputation can be considered property.

For example, when you buy or sell a business often part of the price is called "good will". That is - the good will the business has earned and maintained. It is given a recognised material value. Someone who slanders or libels you then, in a way that effects you professionally can in fact be doing you lasting material damage.

I'm not going to argue with the statement "legally reputation can be considered property". Anything can be considered anything.

Just give me a straight answer, so I can answer it. Is that the argument you're making? That I cannot dispose of your reputation in any way, because it is your property?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

My laziness always looks for the simplest solution. Am I being over-simplistic

by demanding nothing more from a limited government than that it protect

individual rights?

It is not my right (surely?) to NOT be lied to. By any source.

True. And it's even less so your right to not be lied about.

[whYNOT]

True. And it's even less so your right to not be lied about.

Here, I'm not so certain. A lie told to you has no direct correlation with material loss or damage.

(Unless you are very dumb, then it's your own responsibility if you believe the guy who sells you the Eiffel Tower.)

A lie told about you, however, is 1. outside of your control to respond to. 2. can be financially destructive 3. makes you

an involuntary victim.

By these criteria, wouldn't this be an objectively criminal act?

[Superman123]

I took a quick look at FoxNewsLies.net and was not impressed.  

I merely used it as an example of a way to keep news sources honest. I prefer to have more than one news source.

[Nicky]

Here, I'm not so certain. A lie told to you has no direct correlation with material loss or damage.

(Unless you are very dumb, then it's your own responsibility if you believe the guy who sells you the Eiffel Tower.)

A lie told about you, however, is 1. outside of your control to respond to. 2. can be financially destructive 3. makes you

an involuntary victim.

By these criteria, wouldn't this be an objectively criminal act?

Point nr. 3 is not a criteria, it's begging the question. As for the first two, no, it does not. The same criteria fit to someone telling a damaging truth about you to someone behind your back. That's not a crime, is it?

There is only one objective criteria: whether something is a restriction on your freedom to act within your rights. And there is only one means by which that objective criteria can be met: physical force.

Every other claim of being wronged in one's rights is an attempt to abuse government power, to force others to do what you perceive to be moral. The altruists believe that welfare is moral. We consider honesty moral. But neither of us has the right to impose our morality on the marketplace.

The line has to be the use of force. Any other line, whether it's a preference for honesty over lies, or a preference for altruism over selfishness, is an example of a moral code being forced on people who don't necessarily subscribe to it, and it opens the door on any dominant moral code being forced on everyone, without any kind of political restrictions.

[Greebo]

You're right - fraud *is* force. Fraud is force even without physical action because it deprives the other party of something they rightfully possess, something that also need not be *physical* (such as intellectual property).

Slander and Libel - the deliberate acts of lying about a party - deprives that party of of a reputation that they have earned, substituting for it a reputation that is damaged - a reputation that will be used by others to evaluate their own dealings with that person. (It has already been shown why this use of reputation is a necessity)

So yes, reputation is property, and if your reputation is damaged wrongfully, by fraud, you are deprived of the reputation to which you should be entitled, just as much as if I defraud you in a financial manner and withheld from you money which you should otherwise rightfully possess.

While it is true that you can also cause the reputation harm by telling the truth, if the reputation suffers from the truth, that is because the reputation itself is not deserved, and so you can have no rightful claim to it.

[Nicky]

You're right - fraud *is* force. Fraud is force even without physical action because it deprives the other party of something they rightfully possess, something that also need not be *physical* (such as intellectual property).

Slander and Libel - the deliberate acts of lying about a party - deprives that party of of a reputation that they have earned, substituting for it a reputation that is damaged - a reputation that will be used by others to evaluate their own dealings with that person. (It has already been shown why this use of reputation is a necessity)

So yes, reputation is property, and if your reputation is damaged wrongfully, by fraud, you are deprived of the reputation to which you should be entitled, just as much as if I defraud you in a financial manner and withheld from you money which you should otherwise rightfully possess.

While it is true that you can also cause the reputation harm by telling the truth, if the reputation suffers from the truth, that is because the reputation itself is not deserved, and so you can have no rightful claim to it.

Define the concept force please. You seem to be using it differently than me.

So yes, reputation is property.

Reputation is other people's opinions of you, right? Do you really own someone's opinion of you? Are you saying that my opinion of you is your property?

Forget others lying about it, that would mean that I myself couldn't arbitrarily change my opinion of you, for whatever reason I feel like it, either. After all, you own that part of my consciousness.

something they rightfully possess, something that also need not be *physical* (such as intellectual property)

That is not true. The owner of intellectual property does not own the contents of people's minds, only the physical instances of his book, recording, musical composition, design feature or invention, etc.

I can in fact have intimate knowledge of how the Iphone was designed. There is nothing illegal about it. It is only illegal to create a physical instance of that design.

The violation of intellectual property, just like fraud, is very much a physical act of force, where one holds on to and uses a physical object that does not belong to him.

I am willing to demonstrate that there is physical force involved in every type of action that I consider a crime, and I would never claim something to be a crime if I couldn't do that. You still haven't shown where the physical force is in the act of lying about someone.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

Nicky,

I think you're right: force, coercion, fraud, etc. is the only benchmark for objective law -

whether, or not, there is financial loss involved.

Financial and material loss is not criterion enough, iow, without the presence

of force.

Everything outside this parameter is for rational citizens to settle, amicably,

or through civil suits.

[Nicky]

Nicky,

I think you're right: force, coercion, fraud, etc. is the only benchmark for objective law -

whether, or not, there is financial loss involved.

Financial and material loss is not criterion enough, iow, without the presence

of force.

Everything outside this parameter is for rational citizens to settle, amicably,

or through civil suits.

Civil suits are backed by government force too. Wouldn't a civil suit (that is won) that is not a reaction to force be initiation of force?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Nicky

[Craig24]

I am willing to demonstrate that there is physical force involved in every type of action that I consider a crime, and I would never claim something to be a crime if I couldn't do that. You still haven't shown where the physical force is in the act of lying about someone.

It would depend on the nature of the lie and the damage the lie causes. The example given in the 'restrictions on speech' thread, If I remember correctly, was the case of a published report that a dentist has a contagious disease and this report caused him to lose his business. If the report was a lie and the reporter knew it, that would be considered an act of force. The dentist should sue and win his case.

[SapereAude]

I'm not going to argue with the statement "legally reputation can be considered property". Anything can be considered anything.

Just give me a straight answer, so I can answer it. Is that the argument you're making? That I cannot dispose of your reputation in any way, because it is your property?

You asked a question and I answered it. Nothing more.

I'm answering the question as it sits in the world we live in here and now, not some utopia.

So- since 1/3 of the value of my business is good will (good will value of a business varies of course, this is the estimate of mine) yes, I would consider that property. If a competitor willfully and deliberately spread malicious falsehoods about my business with the intent of destroying its value I would have good reason to sue.

[whYNOT]

That's interesting to Americans in light of the fact that Justice Ginsburg seems to prefer the SA constitution and says that if she were starting from the beginning she'd prefer it to the ours.

Reidy,

Which should be enough for her impeachment (or whatever you do with Justices).

Not only for her disdain for the US Constitution, but for her ignorance.

When every 'special interest' group has rights, then nobody has rights - that's

what she applauds?

[SapereAude]

Reidy,

Which should be enough for her impeachment (or whatever you do with Justices).

Not only for her disdain for the US Constitution, but for her ignorance.

When every 'special interest' group has rights, then nobody has rights - that's

what she applauds?

If you were to look over her judicial history you would find that yes, that is exactly what she applaudes.

[DonAthos]

So- since 1/3 of the value of my business is good will (good will value of a business varies of course, this is the estimate of mine) yes, I would consider that property. If a competitor willfully and deliberately spread malicious falsehoods about my business with the intent of destroying its value I would have good reason to sue.

In the same sense you mean here, what is the "value," say, of a man's baseball card collection.

Isn't it the price that people are willing to pay for those baseball cards? That is, doesn't this "value" depend on other peoples' estimations? So when we own baseball cards, insofar as we also "own their value," do we also "own" other peoples' estimations of our baseball cards?

I think that if we own property in baseball cards, what I mean is that we own the physical items -- the cards -- which may or may not be a "value" to us (or anyone else). I have the property right to sell or destroy them as I choose, but if I do sell them, I cannot command others to pay the price that I ask, regardless of what I think they're "worth." (We must instead come to a voluntary consensus as to their "value" for the purpose of trading.)

Suppose I had a rare baseball card -- high in "value" in the way that you mean -- and some personal rival of mine decided to flood the market with copies of that card, specifically in an effort to injure me. In this way, he is intentionally destroying the "value" of my collection; he is acting in a willful and malicious manner. And surely this could be as damaging to my property's "value" as the example you've provided.

Do I have grounds to sue?

[Nicky]

So- since 1/3 of the value of my business is good will (good will value of a business varies of course, this is the estimate of mine) yes, I would consider that property.

Who's good will do you consider your property? Is my good will your property?

[Nicky]

It would depend on the nature of the lie and the damage the lie causes. The example given in the 'restrictions on speech' thread, If I remember correctly, was the case of a published report that a dentist has a contagious disease and this report caused him to lose his business. If the report was a lie and the reporter knew it, that would be considered an act of force.

Define the word force please. You seem to be using it differently than I am.

The definition I am using is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force This kind of force is not present in your scenario. Everyone who abandoned that dentist did so voluntarily, they were not physically forced to do so.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Nicky

[SapereAude]

Who's good will do you consider your property? Is my good will your property?

I don't think you understand "good will" as a business concept. It is not the same as goodwill in the interpersonal sense. And I'm not about to start teaching Business 101 here because 1) I'm not getting paid to do so 2) I'm concerned perhaps that you are being deliberately obtuse 3). it would take this post off topic. If you'd care to continue on this line you'll need to do some reading.

[Nicky]

I don't think you understand "good will" as a business concept. It is not the same as goodwill in the interpersonal sense. And I'm not about to start teaching Business 101 here because 1) I'm not getting paid to do so 2) I'm concerned perhaps that you are being deliberately obtuse 3). it would take this post off topic. If you'd care to continue on this line you'll need to do some reading.

It doesn't matter what good will is. I know what reputation is. It's other people's opinion of you or your business. I also know what yes and no mean.

So, if you want to, you can at any time give me a straight answer to my original question to you: Do you consider your reputation (other people's opinions of you) your property? Yes or no?

[SapereAude]

Who's good will do you consider your property? Is my good will your property?

This is the question you asked of me.

Words mean things. If you refuse to learn the meaning of the words being employed this is not worth engaging in. It is intellectually dishonest of you to ask a direct question about an issue then state that it doesn't matter that you don't even know what the term you're discussing means, and then change the question.

If you refuse to engage in honest dialogue then do not address me. It'll be pointless for you, and supremely uninteresting for me.

Edited March 23, 2012 by SapereAude

[DonAthos]

If you refuse to engage in honest dialogue then do not address me. It'll be pointless for you, and supremely uninteresting for me.

I really don't want to engage anyone in the above sort of manner, so I'm a little hesitant to press, but...

I also responded to your earlier post, and I wonder if you're interested at all in the questions I'd raised? Perhaps you think my scenario inapplicable? Or perhaps you've decided that I'm also being "deliberately obtuse" or "intellectually dishonest" (though obviously I try not to be either of those things). I don't know.

But I remain interested in this topic, and generally unsettled, and since you appear to have a strong and clear opinion on the subject, I'd also be interested in your reply.

[Nicky]

Words mean things. If you refuse to learn the meaning of the words being employed

The problem is you refusing to define your term. A problem I'm willing to overlook, by forgetting you ever used a term you are unwilling to define, and just getting back to the original question, of "Do you consider your reputation your property?".

No amount of research on the Internet is going to tell me what you mean by the word goodwill. Only you could. And you are refusing to.

This is the question you asked of me.

Words mean things. If you refuse to learn the meaning of the words being employed this is not worth engaging in. It is intellectually dishonest of you to ask a direct question about an issue then state that it doesn't matter that you don't even know what the term you're discussing means, and then change the question.

If you refuse to engage in honest dialogue then do not address me. It'll be pointless for you, and supremely uninteresting for me.

My original question, that you are refusing to answer was "Do you consider your reputation your property?". In trying to evade that question, you introduced a supposedly unknown to me concept called goodwill, to replace the word reputation with.

I assumed I know what you mean by goodwill, so I asked you about that too. You refused to answer that question as well, and claimed that I must not know what goodwill is. I do, but you don't think I do, and you are refusing to define it.

I said OK, fair enough, let's forget about that, get back to the original question then. Which is where we are now. Do you consider your reputation (other people's opinions of you) your property?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Nicky

[Reason_Being]

Freedom of speech. That's all you need to know.

[Greebo]

Define the concept force please. You seem to be using it differently than me.

I think its more a concept of what constitutes *physical* force. You acknowledge that fraud is force because there is a physical component to it - ie - goods are acquired in an illicit manner. But that is not all that constitutes physicial force. The *threat* of force is force, for one - if I threaten to kill you, I'm initiating force without lifting a finger. The shouting of fire in a theater isn't wrong because people get hurt - someone might NOT get hurt at all, and yet the act is and should be criminal. Driving while drunk is wrong not beacause it kills people (people drive drunk with alarming frequency without hurting anyone including themselves), but because it imposes a risk of harm upon others that is not deserved, just as the shouting of fire does so.

Reputation is other people's opinions of you, right? Do you really own someone's opinion of you? Are you saying that my opinion of you is your property?

Reputation is a general opinion of you, not an individual one. Who else could you say owns a reputation but the person to whom it applies.

That is not true. The owner of intellectual property does not own the contents of people's minds, only the physical instances of his book, recording, musical composition, design feature or invention, etc.

The owner of the IP owns the content of HIS mind. If you create a new idea or pattern of sounds never created before, and you never, ever share it with anyone else, then it solely is yours and yours alone. The person who receives that idea or pattern receives it in only one of two ways - honestly or illicitly - and would never have it if not for the creator who owns the IP. What the owner of the IP does when he shares that IP is grants the receiver the right to obtain a copy of that pattern - whether that copy is physically tangible as in a book, or intangible as in a remembered song. No, the owner of the IP can never force you to UN remember a song, but assuming you gained that memory rightfully, you have every right to keep it - just not redistribute it.

With a reputation, again, its something a person works to have and to keep. The reputation of a person *is a value* to that person. I do not know how you could possibly imagine otherwise.

The violation of intellectual property, just like fraud, is very much a physical act of force, where one holds on to and uses a physical object that does not belong to him.

If nothing else, the very act of speaking or writing a falsehood is a physical action. So is shooting a gun, or swinging a fist. It isn't the shooting or the swinging that is the problem, it's the shooting or swinging *or speaking* at someone else that's the problem.

Your freedom of speech is limited just as all your other freedoms - at the end of your own being. If I can swing my arms wildly as long as I don't wrongly affect someone else, why shouldn't the same rule apply to speech - you can say whatever you like but you're limited at what wrongly affects someone else?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Greebo