#JesuisCharlie

[DimaMazin]

 

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

 

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

 

Islam was useful for organizers of the terrorist attacks in Paris. How is it useful for French government?

Edited January 13, 2015 by DimaMazin

[Bill Angel]

There is the argument that the "wicked" satire of Charlie Hebdo was RACIST against Arabs and/or Muslims. It is comparable to white people using the N word.

 

As for satire, I grew up reading "Mad Magazine" which is critical of everyone.

[acord]

Do we have the 'right to insult'? If I say to a Jew that the holocaust hasn't happened, or to a person of a certain colour that he looks like a particular animal, or say to gays that I don't like them, why will I be in trouble?

[zapatos]

Do we have the 'right to insult'? If I say to a Jew that the holocaust hasn't happened, or to a person of a certain colour that he looks like a particular animal, or say to gays that I don't like them, why will I be in trouble?

Some of us have that right. Not everyone though.

[Airbrush]

Do we have the 'right to insult'? If I say to a Jew that the holocaust hasn't happened, or to a person of a certain colour that he looks like a particular animal, or say to gays that I don't like them, why will I be in trouble?

 

Yes we all have the right to insult, but there is a possibility of being in "trouble" that whomever you insult may take the law into their own hands and hurt you because of it. Then you have to acuse them of battery, but that does not fix your physical injury. The person that hurts you physically, because of your verbal insult, needs to believe you will NOT call the cops on him, which is a delusional attitude. And delusion is very common among all people.

 

Hey folks, Charlie Hebdo will be available in English, Spanish, and Arabic, so buy a copy or subscribe today! Arnold Schwarzenegger purchased 10 subscriptions.

 

I'm going to see how to buy an English copy.

 

My research finds it's a weekly mag and a year subscription is $181. US (about $3.50 per issue) on Amazon.com, but I need the ENGLISH version and there is no mention how to obtain an English version. Also it seems stupid there are a number of articles ABOUT the next Charlie Hebdo, it will be 3 million copies, but not one gives a clue HOW to by one English language issue. Is Charlie Hebdo stupid? If not, why don't they give a clue how somebody can buy a damn copy?

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=subscriptions+magazine&tag=googhydr-20&index=magazines&hvadid=49843307905&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=150884328278866957&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_349lsgbhzr_b

Edited January 13, 2015 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

 

Well of course, but I've made no such assumption.

 

What I did state, is that there shouldn't be grounds for a trial based solely on my feelings. It is simply not substantial for bringing someone into court. With such a serious accusation, providing evidence on the damage to my reputation should be easy. So again, I think the plaintiff should hold the burden of proof, for reasons I've already stated. Freedom of speech is my main concern here.

 

 

I cannot prove I'm not a murderer, but there would be no evidence that I am a murderer, so the accusation would not hold water in court. I would have evidence of libel (your slanderous claims all over the internet) and any damage to my reputation (beyond just my feelings).

 

 

He could sue for damages if he had yet to be tried for murder. But what led to his arrest was evidence, so any claims that it was you that led to his arrest would be easily countered. Any claims of slander would be dropped and you would (I would hope) receive compensation.

 

This is not ideal, but it beats (IMO) having a system that can be easily abused, stifles free speech and that goes against the core principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Here's a quote that pretty much sums up my thoughts...

 

" The main "atrocity" in defamation is that it is the only civil wrong where the burden of proof is placed on the defence. In all other civil actions, claimants bear this burden – which is logical and fair, since they are the party using the process to drag others into court. The Ministry of Justice refused to make this change in the defamation bill because "proving a negative is always difficult". It's not. All the claimant has to do is to go into the witness box and aver that the story is false. If he or she survives cross-examination and any defence evidence, their case is proved on the balance of probabilities."

 

Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/feb/25/libel-laws-speech-uk-expensive

OK, lets say that I disapprove of some politician's policies.

Call him Mr Smith and say that his policies reduce welfare payments so some people either starve or commit suicide.

|Imagine that, on some website or other I say "That Smith is a murderer- he is responsible for those deaths.

 

If the rules were what that clip from the guardian suggests then all Mr Smith has to do is go into court and say "I'm not a murderer".

Since (technically) he isn't, there's no way I can defend my actions.

I get sued for libel for voicing an opinion.

 

In the current system, he sues for libel and my defence is that it's "fair comment" it's an opinion, not a fact. It was never meant to be taken literally.

 

That's a valid defence in law so I get away with my critique of Mr Smith's lethal policies.

 

Why do you think that it is more conducive to free speech if I get sued for voicing an opinion?

 

Also, do you accept that the problem with the case against Mr Singh was that the judge made a mistake?

Islam was useful for organizers of the terrorist attacks in Paris. How is it useful for French government?

I haven't been following the French news, but here's how the UK government are using it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-pledges-new-snoopers-charter-if-he-wins-election-9971379.html

 

I'd imagine the French are doing the same sort of thing.

Edited January 14, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

You should be innocent of libel until it was proved my reputation was damaged. If I simply stated, well John has been saying nasty things about me on the internet, and it's hurt my ickle feelings, would not or should not cut it in a court of law.

The issue may not be "hurt feelings" in the typical sense, but the terror of being an object of others' hatred and disgust.

If somebody threatens to kill you, you are already harmed. It may inconvenience you to ensure your safety, and you may feel terrorized. Now suppose somebody gossips something about you that would make others want you dead.

Edited January 14, 2015 by MonDie

[Royston]

I've been busy, so sorry for the late response.

 

OK, lets say that I disapprove of some politician's policies.

Call him Mr Smith and say that his policies reduce welfare payments so some people either starve or commit suicide.

|Imagine that, on some website or other I say "That Smith is a murderer- he is responsible for those deaths.

 

If the rules were what that clip from the guardian suggests then all Mr Smith has to do is go into court and say "I'm not a murderer".

Since (technically) he isn't, there's no way I can defend my actions.

I get sued for libel for voicing an opinion.

 

In the current system, he sues for libel and my defence is that it's "fair comment" it's an opinion, not a fact. It was never meant to be taken literally.

 

That's a valid defence in law so I get away with my critique of Mr Smith's lethal policies.

 

Both of those scenarios are legitimate within the current system, so that's a contradiction. In such a case it would be down to judge and jury rather than, for example, clear cut evidence.

 

I'm not sure what these constant hypothetical situations are trying to achieve.

 

Do you think I don't understand your arguments, so you feel the need to re-frame them, or am I rebutting your arguments sufficiently ? Or is it something else...not sure I care really. Trust me it's not the former.

 

I dunno, lets get down to brass tacks. From reading back on your arguments it seems you agree with the following...

 

Subjective statements that are open to interpretation are sueable, and somebody is within their rights to bring someone else into court for making a subjective statement. This can cost an exceptional amount of money, but you seem to be ok with that ? The fact that libel even exists is stifling to free speech, (why would anyone want to speak out against, say, the Fox network if they can be sued for libel) the fact it is incredibly expensive, even more so. Penny for your thoughts has become, an obscene amount of cash for your thoughts.

 

You seem to be ok with guilty until proven innocent and your reasoning is that taking this stance, which is logically unsound, is a way of tackling innocent until proven guilty despite it's a direct contradiction. It is the equivalent of saying, I'll stop that murderer by murdering them.

 

It gets worse, you then try to legitamise your argument because some outdated wanky laws are used in the court room, such as...

 

It was never meant to be taken literally.

That's a valid defence in law so I get away with my critique of Mr Smith's lethal policies.

 

So a subjective defence is a good defence is it ? How can you take that seriously ?

 

The issue may not be "hurt feelings" in the typical sense, but the terror of being an object of others' hatred and disgust.
If somebody threatens to kill you, you are already harmed. It may inconvenience you to ensure your safety, and you may feel terrorized. Now suppose somebody gossips something about you that would make others want you dead.

 

You can go off at a tangent all you want, that wasn't the discussion at the time.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

...

 

(Actually there is a big problem- you can't get legal aid for slander cases- but that's a political problem, more than a legal one).

 

....

 

The fact that he only won because he could afford to pay is a problem, but that's an issue with the legal system in general, rather than libel law in particular.

From reading back on your arguments it seems you agree with the following...

. This can cost an exceptional amount of money, but you seem to be ok with that ?

 

 

Do you think I don't understand your arguments, so you feel the need to re-frame them, or am I rebutting your arguments sufficiently ? Or is it something else...not sure I care really.

Trust me it's not the former.

 

Do you see why I don't trust you to understand what I have written?

 

You also seem resolute in your refusal to count to two.

There are two sides to any case.

You can't assume they are both innocent, because they (generally) can't be.

In the specific case I suggested, either there's a slanderer or there's a murderer.

 

It's not that you have rebutted the point inadequately, you have not addressed it at all.

How do you deal with the fact that you can not assume innocence on both sides?

 

There is a solution for most cases- that's the origin of legal privilege- but it doesn't work for slander.

Edited January 17, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

Your discussion might be easier to follow if you spoke about burden of proof of claims rather than innocence/guilt of people.

[John Cuthber]

OK is the burden of proof with the person making a claim that his opponent committed slander or is the burden of proof with the person claiming that his opponent committed murder?

 

The situation is pretty symmetrical, so it's not obvious where that burden should lie.

The point remains that it has to be with someone; there are two sides to the argument.

 

Royston seems to think it should lie with nobody since that's what you get if you assume that both sides are innocent.

 

My view is that murder is a much more serious matter than slander so, if there's no strong evidence to prove that it took place, the assumption must be that there was no murder.

If that's the case, then there must have been slander.

So, slanderers end up carrying the burden of proof.

 

There's also the fact that they chose to start the whole sequence of events by making an allegation in the first place.

If you are going to make a defamatory statement then you should be able to back it up.

[MonDie]

OK is the burden of proof with the person making a claim that his opponent committed slander or is the burden of proof with the person claiming that his opponent committed murder?

My understanding is that slander (or defamation) involves making false claims.

 

My view is that murder is a much more serious matter than slander so, if there's no strong evidence to prove that it took place, the assumption must be that there was no murder.

If that's the case, then there must have been slander.

So, slanderers end up carrying the burden of proof.

 

There's also the fact that they chose to start the whole sequence of events by making an allegation in the first place.

If you are going to make a defamatory statement then you should be able to back it up.

Except it's not a murder trial, and the stakes aren't as high. This is civil court, I would think.

 

We could apply to the innocence dilemma Stuart Mill's concept of civil liberty: My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If the slanderer has swung their fist, then somebody must be guilty, and the question becomes whether the slanderer had sufficient justification to swing. However, we have to consider the confidence requirement of both claims: whether a fist was swung, and whether it was justified.

Murder has a low base rate, so the claim of murder itself is evidence that a false claim was made (slander). However, evidence to the contrary, i.e. evidence that he didn't commit the murder in question, would strengthen our confidence that slander has occurred.

Edited January 18, 2015 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

My understanding is that slander (or defamation) involves making false claims.

 

 

Except it's not a murder trial, and the stakes aren't as high. This is civil court, I would think.

 

We could apply to the innocence dilemma Stuart Mill's concept of civil liberty: My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If the slanderer has swung their fist, then somebody must be guilty, and the question becomes whether the slanderer had sufficient justification to swing. However, we have to consider the confidence requirement of both claims: whether a fist was swung, and whether it was justified.

Murder has a low base-rate, so the claim of murder itself is evidence that a false claim was made (slander) and a "fist swung". However, evidence to the contrary, that he didn't commit the murder in question, would strengthen our confidence that slander has occurred.

"My understanding is that slander (or defamation) involves making false claims."

Yes, so if I claim that Royston is a murderer then either he is a murderer or I am a slanderer.

So?

If he sues me for making that claim then with whom does the burden of proof lie?

Is it with the person making a claim that his opponent committed slander or is the burden of proof with the person claiming that his opponent committed murder?

It's not generally difficult to decide if an allegation was made. The tricky bit is deciding whether it was justified or not.

Is it, for example, legitimate to call mr Smith a murderer in the case I suggested?

 

It is a matter for a civil court- but the court still has to decide if I'm a slanderer or he's a murderer.

And it's still not obvious who should have the burden of proof.

Edited January 17, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

I'm sorry, John, but I'm done here—I'm done with the Philosophy section.

Edited January 17, 2015 by MonDie

[Royston]

Do you see why I don't trust you to understand what I have written?

 

You also seem resolute in your refusal to count to two.

There are two sides to any case.

 

Fancy refraining from ad homs ? I'm perfectly aware of your third point, but you're failing to follow the argument properly.

 

Once again, and repeating arguments appears as rhetoric, but in your case it's because you ignore it...I have never assumed this. Please point out specifically where I've assumed that both parties are innocent, because you hav'nt so far. This discussion is growing increasingly tiresome.

 

Why have you skirted around my main points...why ? TBH I don't care, belligerence is belligerence and it's frankly boring. If you don't have the common decency to attack the points I've raised, then whatever, can't be arsed, goodbye, yawn inducing, pffft.

 

EDIT: Separate clause needs a comma after but.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Royston

[John Cuthber]

What you said was

", libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous."

What I have pointed out is that (almost) every court case presumes guilt.

They presume the guilt of the party who is not the party whose innocence is presumed.

 

There are always two sides. You can not have both sides assumed to be innocent (and thus free from the burden of proof).

 

Imagine I slander you, for example, by saying you are a murderer.

You take me to court, and accuse me of slander.

 

I stand up in court and say "I don't have to prove I'm innocent- you have to prove me guilty if you want to get anywhere. In particular, you have to prove that what I said was false"

You, in turn stand up and say "This is slanderous unless I'm guilty of murder. I don't have to prove that I'm innocent of murder. You have to prove that your assertion is true".

 

So, since both sides can claim that they don't have to prove their innocence, neither side can get anywhere.

 

You have yet to address this problem.

Please do so.

 

Perhaps you can then address the fact that the only way you could prove me guilty of slander is to prove that you didn't commit murder.

You can't, in general, prove a negative.

So you are seeking to put the burden of proof on the party that would be logically unable to prove their point.

 

 

Also, look up what ad hom means.

If you think I'm using an ad hom argument, please point out where.

If you think I'm being insulting then say so, or...

 

The appropriate response is to get over it, and treat an insult for precisely what it is, a bunch of words.

 

Edited January 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Airbrush]

I googled "Charlie Hebdo English version" and the best I can judge by reading the top 4 articles is that there still is no English version. And I think if an English version appears it will probably be like this utube which will show the cartoons in French with a note on the side translating some of it. I was hoping for a totally English version, not a French version with small English side notes.

 

If anyone learns how to order a single English copy for $3.50 plus P&H, please explain here, thanks.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56q428amN0

Edited January 19, 2015 by Airbrush

[DimaMazin]

Do we have the 'right to insult'? If I say to a Jew that the holocaust hasn't happened, or to a person of a certain colour that he looks like a particular animal, or say to gays that I don't like them, why will I be in trouble?

Pride for identity should be punished. Cartoons of JesuisCharlie are the good punishment .