[BIGBANGSingh]

Why did Rand endorse the slander and libel laws? Why are they considered initiations of physical force?

[MinorityOfOne]

I'm bumping this back onto the "new posts" list. If somebody has an answer, I'd like to hear it too...

[GreedyCapitalist]

I don’t know why Ayn Rand endorsed such laws, but I have my own argument.

Lying about the product or service you offer constitutes fraud. A newspaper/newsmagazine is a product with the implicit claim “To the best of my knowledge, everything published inside is true.” Hence, knowingly publishing lies constitutes an initiation of force against the buyer of the paper. However, the injury is to the individual/entity who is the target of the slander/libel. That individual is also the one most capable of recognizing the falsehood and correcting it – hence, he is considered to be the wronged party.

[y_feldblum]

In effect, then, the Onion publishing "slander" does not implictly claim the implicit claim; therefore, the Onion publishing "slander" is no grounds for suit. Correct?

[GreedyCapitalist]

Indeed.

[Richard_Halley]

What the Onion publishes is not slander, because it is parody. It must be intended to be taken seriously as well as deliberatly wrong in order to be slander.

[y_feldblum]

[I agree; the following is further elaboration]

The Onion's implicit claim is, "To the best of my knowledge, everything published inside is false [even if it is intended to mimick the truth]."

To be slander, by GreedyCapitalist's definition, it must make an implicit claim to truth as part of the purchase agreement / terms of service, and then it must violate that agreement or those terms by violating the claim.

I assume that, by "be intended to be taken seriously," you mean, "claims to be the truth to the best of my knowledge."

What would this imply about an unintentional violation of the claim? "To the best of my knowledge" means that only intentional violations, the ones that are to the author's/editor's/publisher's knowledge, are slander. The unintentional ones are not. But as soon as he learns about it [and doesn't correct it], it is to his knowledge and is slander.

[danielshrugged]

Libel is written. Slander is spoken.

Do you have some argument as to why slander might be an initiation of force, in some non-media context? For example, I know someone who was theatened with a slander suit for telling an incriminating story (it was actually a true story, but for the sake of argument suppose it was false) about a person to a potential employer that lost the potential employee his job.

[Richard_Halley]

If there is a contract stating "the following is true," than it would be fraud... otherwise it would not be.

[danielshrugged]

There was no explicit contract in the example I gave. But how does one determine whether there is a similar understood contract as in the case of the newspaper?

[y_feldblum]

danielshrugged -

« Libel is written. Slander is spoken. »

True. Good call.

« I know someone who was theatened with a slander suit for telling an incriminating story [...] about a person to a potential employer that lost the potential employee his job. »

Morally, is that grounds to convict? The potential employee did not have a right to the job, and the potential employer lost out by his own negligence were the story false because he didn't seek to corroborate it.

Richard_Halley is right, that there needs to be some kind of compact. (But I would add, though unnecessarily in the context of this thread: possibly implicitly. I said that just for old times sake.) The sale of a newspaper is contractual in its very nature, though the contract, though explicit, is not written. Tale-bearing is not contractual.

[AisA]

I believe that libel and slander are civil actions, not criminal. To recover damages, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that significant damages occurred as a direct result of the false writing or speech. It would be extremely difficult to prove that the Onion caused party A to act inappropriately toward party B.

[Richard_Halley]

AisA, there must be force initiated or there is no justification for damages. Slander/Libel may currently be what you describe it as, but it shouldn't be.

[AisA]

Richard, I believe slander/libel is a special case of fraud. Fraud is normally the improper acquisition of values by misleading the other party as to the nature of the item being exchanged. Slander/libel is the misrepresentation of another party's character, sometimes to improperly acquire values -- such as spreading lies about your competitor's products to get people to purchase your own -- and sometimes just to improperly inflict damage on the misrepresented party. It is an instance of force in the sense that an obstacle (the slander/libel) is imposed between the minds of others and the truth about the aggrieved party's character.

[Richard_Halley]

Nothing can be "imposed" on the minds of others. It should only be slander/libel if there is some kind of agreement that the things said are to be truthfull.

[dondigitalia]

Richard_Halley, on Apr 5 2004, 03:52 PM, said:

Nothing can be "imposed" on the minds of others.

I'll expand on this a litte: It is up to each individual to decide what he or she will accept as truth. Sometimes this will require more information than is initially given. Any acceptance of a statement as truth without some sort of contract or sufficient supportive evidence (on faith), is irrational.

[isaac]

Slander and libel also can refer to revealing information that may or may not be true, but cannot be proven, and is private/personal and/or defamatory.

For example, claiming that someone is a homosexual may be considered slander/libel, even if it is in fact true, if it damages ones reputation.

"Libel is written. Slander is spoken."
Good line. Anyone else ever notice that the character of Jameson is completely based on Gail Wynand? Even in the way that he tries to destroy Spidey with his newspaper.

[Richard_Halley]

Quote

For example, claiming that someone is a homosexual may be considered slander/libel, even if it is in fact true, if it damages ones reputation.

It shouldn't be, stating the truth--or what one thinks is the truth--cannot be fraudulent. A slander/libel case should have to prove that one intentionally lied.

[AisA]

The issue is whether or not slander/libel represents an initiation of force. Richard says, "Nothing can be 'imposed' on the minds of others." I agree. However, something can be interposed between your mind and reality -- without your agreement and thus against your will -- rendering you unable to reach a valid conclusion.

When physical forced is used, the effect is to make you act against your own judgment, thereby negating your mind. When fraud or slander/libel are used, the purpose is to trick you into reaching an erroneous conclusion -- again, without your agreement and thus against your will -- which also negates your mind. Is this not also evil?

Nothing "forces" you to believe the fraudulent claims or the slander/libel -- but if you are enticed to act on the claims and in doing so suffer damages, surely the defrauder/slanderer/libeler should be held responsible.

[Richard_Halley]

Quote

...but if you are enticed to act on the claims and in doing so suffer damages...

Enticing is not fruad, nor any other sort of crime.