Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Defamation

Rate this topic


Eric Mathis

Recommended Posts

DO, I think the foundation of making slander / libel legally actionable rests in their power to unduly inhibit the personal sphere of autonomy of an individual. Now that X is known to be a car thief (wrongly) and because of this no one is willing to sell him a car, the person who started the rumour has limited X's ability to buy a car, much analogous to having X falsely imprisoned in a room. Slander and libel put up barriers which are morally and legally culpable.
There should be a flip side to that coin, namely liability for false praise -- unduly inflating a person's reputation. By falsely stating the virtues of another, you have unduly expanded X's ability to buy cars or sell stocks. Ordinarily, we would say "But you shouldn't believe everything you hear -- you have to be cautious", and we invoke caveat emptor. What's puzzling to me is the asymmetry, that a person is held responsible for damages arising from accusatory false things that they say, but for non-accusatory false statement we expect people to be critical and not accept unsubstantiated claims. Would you then propose a general principle that a person is liable for damages arising from making any knowingly false statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a flip side to that coin, namely liability for false praise -- unduly inflating a person's reputation. By falsely stating the virtues of another, you have unduly expanded X's ability to buy cars or sell stocks. Ordinarily, we would say "But you shouldn't believe everything you hear -- you have to be cautious", and we invoke caveat emptor. What's puzzling to me is the asymmetry, that a person is held responsible for damages arising from accusatory false things that they say, but for non-accusatory false statement we expect people to be critical and not accept unsubstantiated claims. Would you then propose a general principle that a person is liable for damages arising from making any knowingly false statement?

Hmmm... the whole point of the sword-arm of the law is to punish wrongdoing... if there is no wrongdoing, I am not sure one can invoke the law. Courts will laugh and mock someone who does so... However, if you say X is a great stock seller and M buys stocks which tank the next day due to X being a swindler, YOU are liable for the information if M bought solely on your recommendation (after all, information is a big asset) which you knowingly falsified. If M's stock bulls it 500%, M has no reason to complain and you incur no legal guilt (although IMO you incur moral guilt).

In a perfect world, however, I would support a system where lying (even when it is beneficial) should be legally actionable, simply because it is a huge moral no-no for me. Lying distorts the nature of reality and has a way of becoming a quick modus operandi for anyone enticed by its effects. It's a verbal crack-cocaine, in my opinion. But alas, I don't rule the world... (yet?.. muahah)... j/k

That being aside, without damage, the law cannot be invoked where there is no loss by anyone... I cannot think of a scenario right now where this can happen through lies... possibly only short-term effects.

Issack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, however, I would support a system where lying (even when it is beneficial) should be legally actionable, simply because it is a huge moral no-no for me. Lying distorts the nature of reality and has a way of becoming a quick modus operandi for anyone enticed by its effects. It's a verbal crack-cocaine, in my opinion. But alas, I don't rule the world... (yet?.. muahah)... j/k
Well, I can't say that I agree, or disagree (meaning, I haven't thought through the ramifications enough), but that is a more consistent position -- any damage arising from a knowing falsehood (and, btw, I assume we are talking about the same situation -- positive, knowing misinformation given by Y to X, where Y has no fiduciary duty to X). I'd sort of be surprised if many Objectivists could get on board with that, but maybe I'm not seeing where the legal obligation arises from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I falsely represent certain goods and services and you accept an ageement with me on the basis of my fraudulent offer, then I have violated the agreement. If I simply declare that Nixon is a child molester, there is no contract between us. Nixon did not give something to me based on my knowing false representation, hence no breach.

Nixon owns his life, and his reputation is a part of his life. If you falsely declare that Nixon is a child molester, you are injecting unreason into the judgment of Nixon by his friends, customers, and other associates, as well as by potential prosecutors--and thereby negating the minds of all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a flip side to that coin, namely liability for false praise -- unduly inflating a person's reputation. By falsely stating the virtues of another, you have unduly expanded X's ability to buy cars or sell stocks. Ordinarily, we would say "But you shouldn't believe everything you hear -- you have to be cautious", and we invoke caveat emptor. What's puzzling to me is the asymmetry, that a person is held responsible for damages arising from accusatory false things that they say, but for non-accusatory false statement we expect people to be critical and not accept unsubstantiated claims.

The reason for the asymmetry is that praise is offered as an opinion, while "Nixon is a child molester" is a statement of fact. You are entitled to your opinions even if they are false; you could not be successfully sued for defamation for saying something like, "It wouldn't surprise me if Nixon turned out to be a child molester." But you are responsible for things you state as fact; for example, if a teacher taught his students that "Hitler was a very good-hearted person; he once even rescued a rabbi from drowning," he might very well end up in a court for the second part of his statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the asymmetry is that praise is offered as an opinion, while "Nixon is a child molester" is a statement of fact.
Right, and I am assuming that positive and negative false statements would both be treated alike, so just as "Nixon is an asshole" would not be defamatory, neither would "Nixon in a great guy" be actionable false praise. What would be would be false statements of fact, such as "Nixon is a highly respected criminal lawyer" when in fact Nixon is a totally unrespected garbageman, or "Nixon did an excellent job repairing my roof" when in fact Nixon has never seen your roof. As long as the legal standard is the same, is there a reason to prohibit recovery of damages from a person who makes a "false positive" statement. Knowingly makes a false statement of fact inflating the virtues of another person, which a third party relies on and is thereby harmed. I think I got all the elements in there.

BTW, should posts 19-25, 27, 30-31 and this be moved to topic 3648?

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...