• 10 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle













  • The paradox of tolerance has to do with being tolerant of abhorrent ideas.

    The original concept never limited it to just ideas:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

    This concept is still relevant to people themselves, which is why I brought it up.


    It has nothing to do with mistreating people that think different than you.

    Nazis do a bit more than just think differently. They kill people.

    But regardless, what do you think the “even by force” part means?

    I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument

    How is that not a form of “mistreating people”?





  • It’s not that cut and dry.

    The court determined that journalists were confused about the meaning of the term “felon,” which by definition refers to someone convicted of a felony. Although Blankenship was not a “felon,” he was sentenced to serve a one-year sentence in federal prison — a rarity for a misdemeanor offense.

    “Blankenship’s prison sentence placed him as close to felony status as possible,” Gregory said, adding that for “non-lawyers” describing Blankenship as a felon was not “inherently improbable,” and there were not “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of such a statement.

    “Some of the statements may have been the product of carelessness and substandard journalistic methods,” the chief judge wrote. “But at the end of the day, the record does not contain evidence that the commentators and journalists responsible for the statements were anything more than confused about how to describe a person who served a year in prison for a federal offense.”

    https://apnews.com/article/crime-west-virginia-don-blankenship-prisons-99091dd8c1fdb56458393eff9a7b4360

    The active malice rule is put in place to prevent public figures from sueing anybody who even slightly criticizes them. Without the rule, it would dissuade people’s free speech to report and comment on these things.



  • Actual Malice” is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.

    Thats not really what it is.

    • Right now, the “actual malice” standard — that public officials and powerful individuals cannot win libel cases without proving that a statement was made with knowing or reckless disregard of its falsity

    https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-actual-malice-standard-explained/

    we’re talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact

    Not necessarily. Anybody can sue anybody over anything. How far that lawsuit goes is another story, and there should be protections from bullshit lawsuits from going anywhere. Because without such protections, debate and free speech can get shut down over fear of being sued for being critical of people.

    Finally, “Actual malice” means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.

    That’s not what it means. It means that in an actual malice case, additional requirements are needed. The statement in question has to either be knowingly false OR reckless disregard.

    As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. “I didn’t know for sure it wasn’t true”

    That counts as libel in any case, as is under current law.

    “I didn’t know for sure” is reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as libel even under the actual malice rule.

    Getting rid of the requirement doesn’t make things any better on this point.

    Do you think Fox News should have the “freedom of press” to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?

    They already don’t.

    it isn’t an outrageous standpoint.

    It’s an erosion of protections for the press by a corrupt judge. Even if the standpoint itself isn’t a big deal (it is, anything changing how 1st amendemnt is implemented is a big deal), the context of Clarence’s corruption makes it a big deal.

    Outrageous isn’t the word to use here. Instead the word is corrupt.