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

[rachelbean]

Sorry, but this has been driving me crazy, and I left it alone in an earlier thread (here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1#p1232811) because I was looking forward to the thread dying, but I think it's an important enough of an issue to discuss on it's own.

First, the context of what got me rumbled (from FTB):

Something you all need to understand is that while I am 100% supportive of matters of equality, I also absolutely support the right of free speech, even when it is extremely distasteful.

Oh, wait. Then why did you write to me demanding that I remove that comment that disclosed your name and address*, under threat of taking legal action against me? I don’t think that word “absolutely” means what you seem to think it means.

Oh, and hey, what about this?

Should we sue PZ for libel, like, just for a laugh?

Your commitment to that absolute right to free speech seems to be a bit, you know, elastic.

When I read the above I think what I said out loud was something like "BOBORBOGBRSCVIXUWQCUCXX1!1BBOWBCWO?!" though I can't remember the exact phrasing. First to clarify: Pappa didn't threaten to take legal action against PZ. What he said was that if his personal information remained posted that he would get legal advice, which is of course a rational thing to do in that circumstance. Of course it never hurts to exaggerate and assume when you are having a debate for the benefit of your followers! On the second point, it was insanely obvious (a hint is in the "just for a laugh" bit) that it was a joke, but even if it weren't I would have to assume that PZ understands that right to free speech doesn't mean there aren't possible consequences, especially when you are dealing with the reputation of non public figures.

What I'm not sure of is if PZ really doesn't understand the balance that has been established between right to speech and right to privacy, or he is just pretending in order to get his followers worked up. Now, of course (despite not having a PhD!) I am familiar with the fact that it is not a black and white subject and there has been a debate and probably always will about just how far the right to privacy extends. I do know that the right to free speech as a general principle is upheld only when it does not interfere with our other rights. As a general principle freedom of expression doesn't over-rule the right to privacy or protect you from slander. There are certain exceptions given when dealing with public figures (of which, Pappa is not) but it has to be weighed with the benefit or safety of the public.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy - International Legal Standards on Privacy:

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was drafted and adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 and meanwhile covers the whole European continent except for Belarus and Kosovo, protects the right to respect for private life: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." Through the huge case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, privacy has been defined and its protection has been established as a positive right of everyone.

Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations of 1966 also protects privacy: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

If someone thinks this belongs in the wilder web instead, feel free to move it. I just want to know if there is actually a debate about this, though it seems hard to believe anybody with a highschool education actually is completely unaware of the balance between the right to free speech and freedom of expression and privacy law.







* Sorry, I couldn't help but use at least one emoticon...I understand it speaks to the quality of our community....

[Thinking Aloud]

I happened to look up the Wiki article on English defamation law the other day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law ) which can be used in cases where a person's character is defamed by the speech or writings of others to the detriment of their reputation. The key aspect I found was that when cases are brought, it is for the other to prove that their claims about the individual are true. As far as I can tell, 'free speech' does not extend to defaming someone with untruths.

But I'm not an expert, by any stretch.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

That's why it's called freedom of speech and not freedom of bullshit.

[Jaygray]

I was an admin on a forum a few years back, and we were having a problem with one particular intransigent troll. He was an irritating little squit as trolls usually are. One of my fellow admins decided to get back at him and published his name and address (from a website ‘whois’ search) on one of the threads where he knew the troll would be looking. I only noticed and deleted the post after it had been up a couple of hours when all hell was breaking loose.

You just don’t do it, no matter what the provocation.

The admin’s defence was ‘well the ‘whois’ stuff was in the public domain anyway’.

Great crested hornytoads. Save me from back seat lawyers…

There is a huge difference between looking up a ‘whois’ for information, and publishing the details yourself for malicious purposes. Both the ‘whois’ facility and various law enforcement agencies are very clear on this point, and UK courts will go for you with gusto if you do it.

What happens if some lunatic reads those details and attacks his family and property? Care to leave this as an issue of trust? ON THE WEB? Good grief.

As it stood we had to publically apologise to a damn troll, and pray that he wouldn’t sue our butts off in return (and in all honesty I couldn’t have blamed him if he had done so; what we did was disproportionate and unforgivable). Worse our ISP would have been within their rights to take us down. Not good.

If P Z Myers doesn’t get this, I despair.

[Bella Fortuna]

^^^ EXACTLY.

[Mysturji]

In the UK there is the Data Protection Act 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998

Data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). It is an offence for Other Parties to obtain this personal data without authorisation.

Personal information may not be sent outside the European Economic Area unless the individual whom it is about has consented or adequate protection is in place, for example by the use of a prescribed form of contract to govern the transmission of the data.

I don't know what the US equivalent is, but the 2 questions that first spring to my mind are "What was the legitimate reason Pee Zed had for sharing this information?" and "How did he obtain this information (i.e. who gave/sent it to him)?"

P.S.

^^^ EXACTLY.

Ditto

[Sean Hayden]

I suspect he understands the difference but likens Pappa's original post to an actual threat, and therefore he imagines it and the real threat of having your personal information exposed are equal. He is thinking tit-for-tat, Pappa deserves it and ain't he so lucky PZ is the better man.

(Okay so the last bit is just me having a dig...)

[rachelbean]

Even if that were the case (which I highly doubt) there is not a legal standing for "tit-for-tat". If Pappa's words were a viable threat then take legal action, it would still make the posting of private information illegal on his part

[Thinking Aloud]

In regards to the publication of personal details during the recent flare-up, it was not PZ who posted them, but a commenter on his blog - PZ removed the details very quickly on that occasion and reminded users that it was not allowed. As the apparent owner of his website, he's ultimately responsible for what is published there, and I understand that following his announcement that he would no longer moderate comments, he's reversed that decision.

[rachelbean]

w what the US equivalent is, but the 2 questions that first spring to my mind are "What was the legitimate reason Pee Zed had for sharing this information?" and "How did he obtain this information (i.e. who gave/sent it to him)?"

He didn't post it, some jackass who was promptly scolded did. It was obtained from the whois database which has very strict laws about how that information is used. In any case, it was illegal to post and PZ knew that.

In regards to the publication of personal details during the recent flare-up, it was not PZ who posted them, but a commenter on his blog - PZ removed the details very quickly on that occasion and reminded users that it was not allowed. As the apparent owner of his website, he's ultimately responsible for what is published there, and I understand that following his announcement that he would no longer moderate comments, he's reversed that decision.

In another thread someone said he was back to moderating with help from several people now. But no, he wasn't the one who posted it and he did take it down (assuming because he knew the legality of the situation). He then tried to berate Pappa and make him out as a hypocrite for saying he believed in freedom of expression, because of it. That is where the stupidity comes in to play. Before you say that someone doesn't really believe in or mean something you should probably have a grasp of what it actually means yourself.

[Mysturji]

w what the US equivalent is, but the 2 questions that first spring to my mind are "What was the legitimate reason Pee Zed had for sharing this information?" and "How did he obtain this information (i.e. who gave/sent it to him)?"

He didn't post it, some jackass who was promptly scolded did. It was obtained from the whois database which has very strict laws about how that information is used. In any case, it was illegal to post and PZ knew that.

In regards to the publication of personal details during the recent flare-up, it was not PZ who posted them, but a commenter on his blog - PZ removed the details very quickly on that occasion and reminded users that it was not allowed. As the apparent owner of his website, he's ultimately responsible for what is published there, and I understand that following his announcement that he would no longer moderate comments, he's reversed that decision.

In another thread someone said he was back to moderating with help from several people now. But no, he wasn't the one who posted it and he did take it down (assuming because he knew the legality of the situation). He then tried to berate Pappa and make him out as a hypocrite for saying he believed in freedom of expression, because of it. That is where the stupidity comes in to play. Before you say that someone doesn't really believe in or mean something you should probably have a grasp of what it actually means yourself.

In my defence, m'lady, TA posted his post after I posted mine.
PZ has demonstrated his hypocracy in abundance and with considerable abandon, and I think Sam Harris hit the nail on his pinhead, though much more eloquently (and politely) than I did, elsewhere.

[rachelbean]

Sorry, yes, I only switched around the order of the quotes as not to repeat some stuff in my answers!

[Thinking Aloud]

It's all my fault.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, there are a few issues here. One, publishing of the address is not libel or slander, it could only be, at most, an invasion of privacy, like public disclosure of private facts. Although, the mere publishing of an address by an individual without a legal duty not to disclose it is not that. It probably would not be a legal issue for the address to remain posted on the blog -- PER SE.

There is a second issue, which is that of negligence. In the US, leaving that information up there on a blog might result in a negligence claim in court if some crackpot went to the address and harmed Pappa. One could argue that PZ had a duty to act reasonably in taking down the post that disclosed the address.

The third issue would be for libelous statements. Libel is defamation in print. Defamation is not merely false statements and not merely negative statements. Defamation requires all of the following: (a) the making of a false statement about a person, AND (b) the false statement defames the person AND (c) the person about whom the false, defamatory statement was made must be "damaged" (injured) by it, as in there must be some damage to reputation or suffered mental anguish.

Defamation claims are notoriously difficult to be successful on. Truth is always a defense. Matters of opinion are generally not able to support a defamation claim. Injury is often speculative and speculative injury can't sustain a claim - proof, in terms of the testimony of the injured person, witnesses who will testify to the fact that they believed the statement and it caused them to see the person in a bad light, maybe testimony that financial opportunities were lost as a result of the loss of reputation, and perhaps medical testimony by therapists and such would be helpful. But, if all we have is a scurrilous statement against someone who largely doesn't give a shit, or if it's a statement that is made in jest or that nobody reasonably believes it to be true, then the claim will likely fail.

I think the response to the posting of the address is best to be something like the following: (a) "PZ, you really think it's appropriate to post people's personal addresses on anonymous message boards, when people get all heated and make veiled threats and such? If so, you're fucking cocksucking piece of shit. Fuck you." and (b) PZ, you are hereby notified that the posting of my personal address may result in a crazy person seeing it online and coming to my house and doing me injury. I think it would be reasonable for you to take it down so that the same does not happen. I urge you to do so immediately, before I am injured. and (c) publicize PeeZed's silly and childish responses about how raising the concern over address publication is somehow a strike against someone's "absolute" commitment to freedom of speech - as a college professor and a prominent atheist, I am sure that his own words will easily reduce his standing in the community considerably.

[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.

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. 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. 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.

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!