Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Post Reply New Topic

Hello. Business major versed in constitutional and federal law, state and local law, and business law.

In order to meet the requirements for libel (written) / slander (verbal), the statement has to be made in bad faith (known to be false), AND has to cause a substantive loss of reputation. So, if someone says "I think you are stupid", first you'd have to prove they don't actually believe the claim. That's tricky at best, particularly if they do believe it to be true. The statement "I think you are an idiot" cannot be slanderous or libelous as stated, if the individual actually believes it. IF by some chance you can prove that, then you have to show how their comment caused loss of reputation. What *might* or *could have* happen doesn't count. Having your personal feelings hurt doesn't count. The same people saying the same thing, doesn't count. From a legal point of view, even if everyone on the entire forum turned against you and ran you off, as long as that was the only consequence, it still hasn't me the legal requirements to meet a slander or libel suit. If you went to apply for a job, and they go, "hey, I know that name, aren't you that person from wrongplanet, I heard you're a (something) so I'm not going to hire you", THEN you might have a basis for a slander or libel case. "Getting kicked off the site and feeling too depressed to get a job" is not a direct consequence, that's an indirect consequence. Doesn't count.

Also, you cannot legally protect property with lethal force. Property is not the same category as human life. Dumping them both under the umbrella of "violence" is disingenuous and misleading at best. Unfortunately, there are many people who *are* more concerned with their own property than they are the lives of others.

It must take some rather tiring mental gymnastics to decide that it's not the racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or general lack of concern for the lives of others that people don't like, but instead conclude that people must simply "hate trump supporters" for totally no reason. No, not *all* trump supporters are all of those things, but enough of them are at least one of them, and enough of them are willing to go along with it, that its easier to refer to the whole and acknowledge exceptions, than it would be to try to act like they're just rando individuals, and not coincidentally a part of the same group too.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 23 Jun 2020, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I understand it, saying "<insert name> is an idiot" is classed as a statement of "fact", whereas saying "I think <insert name> is an idiot" is an opinion, with these being treated differently with regards to the law.

With a statement of fact, the burden of proof is on the accuser to be able to support their claim, with an inability to do so indicating "bad faith".

That's whats known as "splitting hairs". Even the direct statement "he is an idiot" could be construed as an opinion, if stated as a fact of belief. In which case the burden proof goes back to the accused to prove that the person meant it as a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion. It's a legally gray area that's already been well addressed in the courts. Even then, the second requirement still has to be met. Loss of reputation. BOTH are necessary for it to be libel or slander. Not one-or-the-other.

Proved my point.

Isn't that expected behaviour in lawyers



In replying to information which had been presented with a responce "<insert name> is an idiot", rather than refuting the information presented, the only purpose that would appear to be served would be to cause a loss of reputation, and so devalue the information that had been previously conveyed. It certainly doesn't add any clarity to the debate, nor further any participants knowledge regarding the subject being debated.

It's only expected of lawyers if you're prejudiced against lawyers. Thank you for the demonstration of institutionalized bias. Cos "everyone knows lawyers are dishonest", right? That's the implication, right? Please, correct me if you meant something else.

Even then, who cares if "he's an idiot" adds to the conversation or not. It was an example of what does or doesn't constitute LIBEL, not an example of what does or does not constitute a strong argument. The POINT is, clever loopholes aside, It doesn't meet the requirements of slander, or libel. "Losing a private argument" does not constitute "loss of reputation" in the context required for a libel suit.

Calling out someone's bias only fails to add clarity to the debate if it's untrue. If it IS true, the I daresay it IS often relevant to the debate, because it illustrates a bias within the discussion. This is an example of a fallacy-fallacy. The basis is that since any "insult" can be used as a hollow epithet, that all uses of such words must simply be instances of such. To believe that an accusation of character adds no value is to automatically assume that the accusation must be untrue. If that's the case, then as much as the "burden of evidence" is brought up, it doesn't mean anything, since it's already been decided that the term is being used in bad faith, without even hearing the evidence in the first place. It's no coincidence that even when evidence is presented, the accused merely claims they're being "attacked" or "bullied".

"Explain to me how that was racist!"
(explains why what they said was racist)
"OMG why are you attacking me like this?! SLANDER! SLANDER!

I think it's a great idea that this bill has been introduced. I also hope the bill is passed.

It must be a cultural difference...In Australia (and on most international forums I have used), the addition of a " " (or similar) is used to indicate a joke, or that something is not meant to be taken seriously.

My appologies, if you believed that it was meant otherwise.

That is how I would usually use it,
Usually in the form of an opinion/observation.

Attitude needs to be considered,
But I think you would need an additional qualifier/contextualiser, such as "Bastard" or "Bigot", etc, to tip the scales towards an insult.

For example,
I find you ignorant, in certain areas,
But I still luv you.
Hence, no insult.

Emojis are important.
People should use them more, imo, especially on an autistic website.

But even if they are used,
Some seem to miss the implications and require an addition qualifier such as: "<Joke>".

Generally, I expect people who know me to understand where I am coming from.

From my reading of it (affecting all attacks based on political belief, rather than the biased subject of the thread indicating it only protected specific views), it certainly seems like something that is needed (sadly) with all the partisan division and vitriol going on.

The fact that a neutrally worded amendment is presented in a partisan way here certainly emphasises how difficult it can be to have a legitimate discussion regarding politics - I'm not sure if it was intended to convey the belief that the amendment was designed to protect a specific viewpoint at the expense of others (partisan framing), or that supporters of a the specified "side" required this protection as a result of frequent attacks against them as people, rather than the policies of their "side".

It would be nice to be able to have a civilised discussion where all sides could explain their opinion/belief, so that all involved could better understand the reasoning behind people's decisions, and not include things such as having someone called "ignorant" by another who had realised that their "side" was incorrect but was unable to process this, instead lashing out at the messenger.

So hypothetically if moderator A decided no breach of WP rules and policies when a WP member called another member "ignorant" then its at their discretion to interpret Alex Plank's WP policy of using "abusive language": and breaching the terms and conditions of membership. Conversely another moderator B decided to throw the same member off WP for using the term "ignorant" as a slur then they are entitled to interpret the rules and policies at their discretion also.

The decision to throw a WP member off this site for using abusive language is not a legal action since the moderator is not a lawyer. But what if the WP member used language that was racist, anti-disability, homophobia or misogyistic?

Under Australian federal law Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 makes it an offence to use a carriage service such as the Internet in a manner which reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive.
On 1 January 2002, Victoria put into effect its Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which makes religious vilification as well as racial vilification unlawful. Section 8(1) of the Act states:

In the state of Victoria "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
Section 11 of the Act provides this concession in favour of freedom of expression:

A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

"It was just a joke" is one of the oldest forms of backpedaling there is. "It was just a joke" that also happened to perpetuate a negative stereotype. The fact that you felt it was ok to engage in negative stereotyping, even as "a joke", illustrates how socially acceptable bias works. Its ok to dehumanize or insult, as long as it's "a joke". So you you were "just kidding", huh? Then why did you say it? I knew quite well it was meant "as a joke". That doesn't make the point any less valid. "It was just a joke, I don't actually believe that!" You believed it enough to make a joke about it, knowing other people would get the inference. Or are you saying you're being disingenuous and just hurl stereotypes to be "funny"?

Sarcasm alert: The following statement is sarcasm to make a point.

But I suppose I should expect dishonest behavior from a continent full of criminals LAWZ just kidding! Get it? Itsa joke, cos Australia used to be a prison colony, so calling people from australia "criminals" is funny, right? It's just a joke, right?

No, it's not funny, and I only said it to make a point. It's a terrible joke, cos joke or no, if people start to believe it, people start to treat people like they deserve it. Like the spongebob episode where spongebob keeps making dumb squirrel jokes, so everyone starts treating sandy like she is actually dumb. It may be "just a joke" to the people it doesn't affect, but there are people it does affect, and to them, it's usually not funny.

"Just a joke" is usually the initial step used to normalize the mistreatment of a group or individual.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 24 Jun 2020, 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

IIRC WP is based in the USA. As such it follows US regulations. WP is a private entity, and can set whatever rules it wants for the most part. If they set a rule that says "we can kick anyone out anytime we want for any reason, or for no reason at all", and you clicked the "I agree" button when joining (which you have to), you can be kicked out for literally any reason, legally. If the rules list vague topics such as "abusive language", its up to the owner and administrators (mods) to decide what is or isn't within that realm. Alex is the site owner, so he gets the final say, legally. But he's MIA, so... The mods do their best on his behalf, since they have the next level of legal authority, since they have been given said authority by Alex.

Removing a member of wrong planet is not a legal action because WP moderators are not law enforcement officers, nor is the action being taken to enforce a legally standing law. It is a private action, taken by a private individual of authority, at a private venue. So even if they say things that violate the first amendment, or do in fact break laws, removing them from WP is still not construed a "legal" action. Legal actions would be along the lines of a restraining order, legally requiring the individual to stay way. Simply banning them from WP is not a legal action in that sense, because the authority and action is not coming from a law enforcement agency. It is purely a private matter, between private individuals and institutions.

"Abusive language" is a vague term at best, and more than a few people seem to interpret it as meaning "anything other than kissing my ass or totally agreeing with me". Disagree with them? Abusive! Call them out? Abusive! Question or doubt them? Abusive! Explaining your reasons? Attacking! Stick to your point and don't let them have their way? Bullying! State a negative opinion? Slander!

Given that WP is a private entity, they can allow (or disallow) any behavior that's not explicitly illegal to begin with. It's not illegal to be racist, so if WP wanted to, they could allow as much racism as they wanted. It's not illegal to call someone a racist either. So WP can allow people to be called out as racists, too, if they so desire. Since they're a private entity, they are not required to be impartial. They can legally be as biased or unbiased as they want.

Now, even if a WP member breaks a law on WP, the act of removing them from WP is still not a legal action on the prt of WP, since WP is not a law enforcement agency, and are not enforcing a law. The closest thing to legal action WP could directly take, would be to report the individuals infraction to the appropriate authorities, who then could theoretically take legal action.

Freedom of speech means occasionally hearing things you don't like. Freedom of speech also means you are free to respond to or disagree with others. Being disagreed with is NOT being silenced. Being disagreed with is NOT being attacked. Godwin's law sounds good and all, but if you look at it's application, the people who invoke it usually mean everyone except *them* engages in that behavior, and that only OTHER people resort to it, but not them! Never them. Somehow, the person invoking Godwin's law, is always magically exempt from it applying to them, too.

Whilst I can almost understand your confected outrage, the comment was made based on one of the reasons given to me by a family friend (retired magistrate), who suggested, based on my habit of splitting hairs, along with my memory (he based that on the fact I had a very good memory for things related to my then "special interest") that I should consider studying law at university (I ended up doing Science instead, but still think that it could be interesting to go back and do law as well, now).

I'll also note that the people in the legal departments at 2 of the companies which I have worked at (Including Chief Legal Officer at my current job) are some of the first to laugh at jokes based on the"stereotypes" of which you complain, and would happily add their own into a conversation.

However I believe the insinuation that the people who live in a given country are all criminals comes very close to hitting the "racism" definition, whether you try to hide it behind a "sarcasm" note or not (as you yourself noted, it is pedalling a negative stereotype, which you must have believed, otherwise why post it).

That's the flip side of Nationalism: "My nation is the best, while theirs is a nation of cutthroats, liars, and thieves".