Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Tero]

This libel thing is surprisingly big in many countries that do not give big$ for physical damage. I blame the flower hat ladies. Eventually... or probably already... Someone will sue someone else for clicking like on Facebook.

[hadespussercats]

rachel, your breakdown of the elements of the problem in question are sound, I think.

I think PZ was trying to make some point/witticism about how freedom of speech is a right that has limits (i.e.- the old saw about not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater), contrasting that with Pappa's comment about believing that the freedom of speech should be absolute. Sort of a "Well, we gotcha!" kind of gesture. But Pappa, so far as I can see, understand those gradations and limits quite well-- which is why he understands the difference between offensive humor versus libel versus privacy rights. Pappa's comment was taking the limits of free speech as a given and discussing offensive speech in particular.

PZ didn't get that. So his "Gotcha!" moment didn't make sense.

[cowiz]

Let's all rape Pappa. I'll go first.

[Coito ergo sum]

I never said the publishing of personal information is Libel, I said the publishing information is a breach of the right to privacy, and that saying you support freedom of expression does not mean that you don't believe in the right to privacy or think it's just as valid of a right, nor does it make you a hypocrite for doing so.

I didn't mean to imply that you had said that -- I was just trying to cover all bases.

But, I don't think it is a breach of a right to privacy, in the US anyway. There are privacy laws which would forbid disclosing someone's address to a third party, but those generally apply to banks and certain institutions that are covered by such laws. If it was some sort of commenter on a blog that happened to post it, I don't believe it's an invasion of privacy by PeeZed, and I also don't think it's an invasion of privacy by the individual blog poster.

Our address was published, Pappa asked for it to be removed. PZ removed it. PZ then said Pappa did not actually support freedom of speech because of that request.

Well, PeeZed is a douche, and shows himself to be an idiot by saying that. Many of us wish the Westboro Baptist dickheads would shut the fuck up, but we aren't against free speech because we want that. Pappa asked PeeZed to be cool and take it down. That's not anti-free speech.

He then went on to quote Pappa's joke about suing for Libel and said again, that means that Pappa doesn't actually know what the right to free speech means.

Again, Peedouche is an ass-douche. Pappa was joking. That was obvious to a four year old.

He was wrong on both points, and even sillier for even arguing about the libel remark (which was in relation to him being called a rapist and such on the site, not the publishing of information). There is no contradiction in supporting freedom of speech/expression and believing just as strongly in the right to privacy or protection of private citizens from being slandered/defamed/etc. That is what my point was. PZ was acting as if he was revealing a great hypocrisy and instead was just showing his ignorance on basic rights, or a desire to misrepresent someone for his own purposes.

Very true -- I mean, the first amendment isn't a codification of the right to defame.

How hard it is to sue someone for any of those things, and what will hold up and with what evidence, I certainly defer to your expertise!

No deference necessary. I'm just chiming in. Pappa wasn't wrong here, and PeeZed is a childish jerk, who I find myself more and more amazed was actually allowed to become a college professor in the first place. I would hate to have him as a professor. Could you imagine? He's the kind of professor who would give students a lower grade if he determines they don't share his political views.

[rachelbean]

I never said the publishing of personal information is Libel, I said the publishing information is a breach of the right to privacy, and that saying you support freedom of expression does not mean that you don't believe in the right to privacy or think it's just as valid of a right, nor does it make you a hypocrite for doing so.

I didn't mean to imply that you had said that -- I was just trying to cover all bases.

Yeah, sorry, I realized that after I posted, that you probably weren't speaking directly to me only

I never said the publishing of personal information is Libel, I said the publishing information is a breach of the right to privacy, and that saying you support freedom of expression does not mean that you don't believe in the right to privacy or think it's just as valid of a right, nor does it make you a hypocrite for doing so.

I didn't mean to imply that you had said that -- I was just trying to cover all bases.

But, I don't think it is a breach of a right to privacy, in the US anyway. There are privacy laws which would forbid disclosing someone's address to a third party, but those generally apply to banks and certain institutions that are covered by such laws. If it was some sort of commenter on a blog that happened to post it, I don't believe it's an invasion of privacy by PeeZed, and I also don't think it's an invasion of privacy by the individual blog poster.

You could very well be right, but I imagine a lot of factors would be considered, including how the information was obtained, where it was posted and the possibility of it leading to harm, etc. Most ISPs and hosting companies have relatively strict rules regarding revealing of private information as well, so at the very least allowing it to stay up could get the site shut down. But yeah, I think that there are very few rational people who would think there was a contradiction between supporting the right to speak and express freely and not supporting the right to give out someone's name and family's address on a forum full of already angry and worked up people.

What got me thinking of it again was Sam Harris's article because he talks about the way PZ is purposefully takes issues and forces an extreme polarization that doesn't actually exist. He is creating these false dichotomies and it just confuses me as to why, but I suppose that is just how some people think the world needs to be viewed. Doesn't seem very rational to me.

[Jaygray]

Well the problem we had was because we hosted the address on our site, it could be argued that we were a holder of personal data without the owner's consent. This held the prospect of us potentailly being in breach of the Data Protection Act.

I wasn't about to be a hero with this because we couldn't afford to fight it out (legal aid you can forget, and I doubted if the case would justify pro-bono), and we were on ground that was far to shaky for my taste.

No idea where anyone would stand in the USA with this stuff, but what a stupid way to potentially get yourself into trouble in the first place.

[Azathoth]

(despite not having a PhD!)

I have met PhDs who have trouble dressing themselves. The guy knows a lot about cephalopods. His ability to find his own arse with both hands and a map is debatable.

[Coito ergo sum]

rachel, your breakdown of the elements of the problem in question are sound, I think.

I think PZ was trying to make some point/witticism about how freedom of speech is a right that has limits (i.e.- the old saw about not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater), contrasting that with Pappa's comment about believing that the freedom of speech should be absolute. Sort of a "Well, we gotcha!" kind of gesture. But Pappa, so far as I can see, understand those gradations and limits quite well-- which is why he understands the difference between offensive humor versus libel versus privacy rights. Pappa's comment was taking the limits of free speech as a given and discussing offensive speech in particular.

PZ didn't get that. So his "Gotcha!" moment didn't make sense.

It is just that, an old saw. You can shout fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. What you can't do is incite a riot by shouting fire in a crowded theater. What's criminalized is the causing of the riot which causes injury, and not the speech itself.

Interestingly, as an aside, the Supreme Court opinion that upheld restrictions on free speech using the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater was a case called Schenck v United States, where Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets opposing the draft during WW1. It is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, and its holding was overturned later by Brandenberg v. Ohio.

[Coito ergo sum]

What got me thinking of it again was Sam Harris's article because he talks about the way PZ is purposefully takes issues and forces an extreme polarization that doesn't actually exist. He is creating these false dichotomies and it just confuses me as to why, but I suppose that is just how some people think the world needs to be viewed. Doesn't seem very rational to me.

My guess as to "why" is a combination of PZ Myers just not being all that sharp, and at the same time having a fairly extreme political agenda.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...When I read the above I think what I said out loud was something like "BOBORBOGBRSCVIXUWQCUCXX1!1BBOWBCWO?!"...

You're getting to grips with the local lingo then.









Sorry - this iz serious thread

[mistermack]

It is just that, an old saw. You can shout fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. What you can't do is incite a riot by shouting fire in a crowded theater. What's criminalized is the causing of the riot which causes injury, and not the speech itself.

There's some grade A bollocks there.
It's like saying that if you shoot someone dead, it's not pulling the trigger that killed him, it was the bullet.
So fucking what? The one caused the other. It's super-bollocks.

In any case, it's the intent that is integral to the crime, not the causing of the riot. If you had very good cause to shout fire, then even if it turns out to be wrong, it's not criminal.

It's criminal if it's malicious, or criminally negligent.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is just that, an old saw. You can shout fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. What you can't do is incite a riot by shouting fire in a crowded theater. What's criminalized is the causing of the riot which causes injury, and not the speech itself.

There's some grade A bollocks there.
It's like saying that if you shoot someone dead, it's not pulling the trigger that killed him, it was the bullet.
So fucking what? The one caused the other. It's super-bollocks.

It's called "prior restraint." Look it up. Speech is different from shooting guns. Think for second before you post for once.

There is no law against saying or shouting "fire" in a theater. There is a law against inciting a riot.

In any case, it's the intent that is integral to the crime, not the causing of the riot. If you had very good cause to shout fire, then even if it turns out to be wrong, it's not criminal.

Of course intent is integral to crime. Crimes generally require a mens rea, or mental state, some level of intent, to be a crime. You can't commit a battery without intent. But, just like you haven't committed a battery if you don't successfully hit someone, you haven't incited a riot if there isn't a riot.

It's criminal if it's malicious, or criminally negligent.

But, not everything malicious or criminally negligent is criminal. Those are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions to most crimes. Intent or other mens rea is ONE element of crime.

[HomerJay]

Publishing someone's personal details could form part of a charge of harassment or even conspiracy to criminal acts, but isn't illegal in itself.

It is low though and I wouldn't expect PZ to make a huge deal about it in the way he has done.

Mind you, he used to post some weird shit years ago on RDF.

[tattuchu]

I'm sick of hearing about PeeZee. PeeZee is a cunt. And not the good sort of cunt either. But the perniciously cunty sort of cunt.

[mistermack]

@ Coito :
I'm pointing out, as I'm sure you know, that you are making a ludicrous distinction, in saying that shouting the word "fire" is perfectly legal. Everybody knows that we are discussing the case where someone mischeivously or maliciously shouts fire, causes a riot, and people are harmed. In that case, the action of shouting "fire" IS criminal, because it's done with malicious intent, and caused harm.

How fucking pointless would it be for me to point out that the action of pulling a trigger is not in itself illegal, it was the killing of innocents, when we were discussing the Batman killing spree?

Freedom of speech, freedom to pull a trigger. They are exactly the same. Until they cause harm, they are harmless.
And THAT'S what I call the bleedin obvious.