Defamation in the stateless society

[Andy]

Or its a variant of vandalism. Just sayin'

How do I prove that people googled my name, found one of the threads here defaming me, and factored that into their decision when they chose not to do business with me?

Again, in your case, pretty tough to prove you didn't mean exactly what you said or that April didn't believe that you meant exactly what you said.  While several people here have supported the idea that you play a character here.  I've never heard it from you.

I think you're talking to Libman.

[Ecolitan]

Umm, yes.....because otherwise you have an argument for using force against somebody because they hurt someone else's feelings. 

Did they do so by saying things they know to be untrue?  It's one thing to give an opinion you believe and have someone's feelings hurt.  Another entirely to say something you know to be false for the purposes of personal gain or causing suffering to another.  I'm all for repercussions in the latter case.  Truth is a defense to libel/slander.

Financial gain does not have to be monetary gain, but yes, fraud is a variant of theft. If there has been no property transfer, then there has been no fraud.

So, if I tell you that I will give you 100K dollars to perform service X and you spend 20K of your own money in order to perform that service and then you find out that I never intended to pay you.  There has been no property transfer and thus, no fraud.  Correct?  After all, all I did was say something that is not true in order to get you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done.

[Rillion]

Umm, yes.....because otherwise you have an argument for using force against somebody because they hurt someone else's feelings. 

Did they do so by saying things they know to be untrue?  It's one thing to give an opinion you believe and have someone's feelings hurt.  Another entirely to say something you know to be false for the purposes of personal gain or causing suffering to another.  I'm all for repercussions in the latter case.

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

[Alex Libman]

I was speaking rhetorically and asking questions.  I don't believe in the legitimacy of intellectual property, defamation, libel, etc.  No combination of 1's and 0's should ever be illegal.

[Ecolitan]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

[Rillion]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The less cute name for that is "rape," which I believe violates the NAP.  Sorry. 

[Ecolitan]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The less cute name for that is "rape," which I believe violates the NAP.  Sorry. 

See....  cash it is.
I would never use it for a prostitute though.  It just doesn't excite me.

[Rillion]

Repercussions?  Sure.  Justification of force for lying about somebody in order to hurt their feelings?  No.  I'm sorry if your ex girlfriend tells all of her friends that you never gave her an orgasm, but that doesn't entitle you to any of her money. 

Really?  You'd think after I got a witness to say they were going to sleep with me before they heard that vicious rumor she'd prefer coming off some money for a prostitute or 2 instead of the only other way I can think of her making proper restitution... sex slave.

The less cute name for that is "rape," which I believe violates the NAP.  Sorry. 

See....  cash it is.
I would never use it for a prostitute though.  It just doesn't excite me.

But forcing money out of someone for lying about your sexual skills does.  I see. 

[Ecolitan]

But forcing money out of someone for lying about your sexual skills does.  I see. 

Oh C'mon now.  You brought up that scenario.  Clearly if anyone was excited about it you were.

Myself...  If it could be proven that she lied and it damaged me, instead of money in my pocket I would prefer a billboard or perhaps a full page newspaper ad apologizing and explaining  exactly and in detail how I did satisfy her.

Why is this so important to you?  Do you have a history of saying untrue things about those who have rejected you?  Has it occurred to you that they did so because they figured out you're the kind of person who likes to say harmful things you know to be false?  Maybe the solution should not be to protect people who lie as a social weapon but to stop doing it.

Incidentally, I know of a real world situation very much like this.
A person I know once claimed that a cousin of mine (I have a great many, this does not jeopardize anyone's identity) had an issue w/ vaginal odor, he told the story to get laughs, and it worked, also to advertise that he had slept w/ this person.  Some time later I was discussing... something relevant I suppose with this cousin and I was informed she never slept with him or even came close.  I called this person out on his lies and he admitted he had made it up, he has since graduated high school and had sex and has no need to lie anymore.

Fast forward to last week.  I'm talking to a mutual acquaintance of the liar and I mention the name of another cousin, she has heard of this other cousin and that she had a distinctly offensive vaginal odor.  I informed this mutual acquaintance that I'd heard that one before and he had admitted it was untrue.  The acquaintance said the story was funny anyway.

This second time offended me greatly, he was old enough to know better this time.  The second cousin in question is a devout Mormon, very proud of her virtue, no doubt a virgin and had briefly dated the lying bastard when she was about 14 (5 years ago).  He didn't do it to harm her, he did it to make himself look good but if she knew this story was floating around...  I don't like to think about it.  She'd cry for days.  If her equally Mormon fiancee heard the story and believed it, I don't want to think about that either.  Hell yes I would support any kind of restitution she asked for including and perhaps especially physical violence in the form of repeatedly kicking his nutsack.

[Rillion]

Why is this so important to you?  Do you have a history of saying untrue things about those who have rejected you? 

No, it is important because free speech would absolutely go down the toilet if it were legally permissible to punish people just for lying in such a way as to hurt someone's feelings.  And I care about free speech. 

[Ecolitan]

Why is this so important to you?  Do you have a history of saying untrue things about those who have rejected you? 

No, it is important because free speech would absolutely go down the toilet if it were legally permissible to punish people just for lying in such a way as to hurt someone's feelings.  And I care about free speech. 

Really?  It's not good enough that telling the truth to hurt someone's feelings is protected?  I've never thought of you as particularly dishonest before, I do now.  I'm very honest and very interested in liberty and I'm not the least bit concerned about protecting people who willfully disseminate fraudulent information for the purpose of manipulating peoples actions.  That's fraud and I can't imagine anyone being concerned about protecting it unless they personally made a habit of committing it.

At this time I'm going to have to point out that this is an English speaking forum.  If y'all would like to use legalese please inform me ahead of time as your definition may or may not have anything all to do with the word as it is defined in my native language.

Fraud: b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

[Rillion]

Really?  It's not good enough that telling the truth to hurt someone's feelings is protected?  I've never thought of you as particularly dishonest before, I do now.  I'm very honest and very interested in liberty and I'm not the least bit concerned about protecting people who willfully disseminate fraudulent information for the purpose of manipulating peoples actions.  That's fraud and I can't imagine anyone being concerned about protecting it unless they personally made a habit of committing it.

I am wildly passionate about protecting free speech, and will fight any attempt to equate hurt feelings caused by speech-- true speech or false speech-- with physical or financial damage.  Why?  Because a) hurt feelings are impossible to measure, and b) people can be incredibly irrational about their hurt feelings.   Maybe you remember when the Muhammad cartoons were published in Denmark, and suddenly people were burning down embassies because they considered themselves so hurt by their leader being portrayed as a terrorist?  An extreme example, yes, but those people would contend that the cartoonists were lying about Muhammad in portraying him that way.  Many of them would contend that they were so  badly hurt that the appropriate penalty for the cartoonists would be death. 

There's also the fact that I could pretend  to be dramatically hurt by a lie you told about me, without being hurt at all.  You could say that my mother is a prostitute, for example.  That would definitely count as a lie, but I would shrug it off because you're just some person on the internet.  For me to sue you for damages would be ridiculous, and a world in which that suit would succeed would be even more ridiculous.   My mother doesn't wear combat boots, either-- LIE!  $500, now, pay up!  My heart is broken!

It's just not feasible, and the potential for abuse is far too great.   Libel and slander laws are so tightly circumscribed for very good reason, and it is precisely to prevent this kind of abuse from happening. 

[Ecolitan]

The Dutch cartoonist has his choice of easy defenses.... 

I was going to list a few but it's entirely beside the point.

Force, Fraud, Theft.... that's the standard.  Those words were always meant to be English words.  I've already posted the relevant English definition of Fraud.

I rest my case.

As far as it being abused.  That's what juries are for.

[Rillion]

The Dutch cartoonist has his choice of easy defenses.... 

Danish. 

Force, Fraud, Theft.... that's the standard.  Those words were always meant to be English words.  I've already posted the relevant English definition of Fraud.

I rest my case.

You're not going to find a lot of libertarians who are willing to agree with you that the provision against fraud includes simply lying.  I believe that most, for example, would support the right of someone to deny the Holocaust, no matter how many feelings get hurt. 

[Ecolitan]

You're not going to find a lot of libertarians who are willing to agree with you that the provision against fraud includes simply lying.  I believe that most, for example, would support the right of someone to deny the Holocaust, no matter how many feelings get hurt. 

Nor am I going to find many Christians who love their neighbor.  Or many Mormons who are on the same side of the war in heaven that they supposedly were on when they lived it.  What's that got to do w/ anything? 

Supposing it did have anything to do with anything.  I agree that simply lying is not enough.  The statement: "I have a blue car" by itself is not a big deal even if the person saying it does not.  If someone walks into a bar and promises ten thousand dollars to anyone driving a blue car, the statement becomes fraud.  Another lie that I'd call fraud if I were on the jury: "I was just tested last week and I am 100% free of all STDs". 

No, it is not fraudulent or lying to believe the holocaust never happened and communicate that belief.  Who said it was?  Is this where I claim straw man?  Did you just mention Hitler?  Can I win on Godwin's Law now?