Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about.

I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.

I don't think that's quite right. If you allow any speech (which you should, IMO) that is one thing... but it's not the same thing as saying that you can't be held responsible for the outcome of your speech.

To use a different analogy... people always talk about how you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater". I would argue that it should absolutely be legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And if you do so, and nothing happens, then you have committed no crime. OTOH, if you do so and a panic ensues and people are trampled to death, then you will be punished - not for yelling "fire", but for causing the panic that resulted in people being trampled to death.

It might seem like a subtle distinction, but I think it's crucial. You should never be punished for what you say (or think) but you can be punished for actually causing harm to another person (including libel/slander/defamation, etc.)

Maybe it makes sense to special-case speech here, but I'm always more comfortable with ideas that don't need special-casing.

Technically, the speech was allowed. But when harms can be conjured up for any scenario, the speech is not really free anymore.

I'm NOT saying that libel, slander, defamation, and incitement shouldn't be actionable things. I'm just saying that it's impossible to allow all types of speech unless you're willing to strike those concepts altogether.

However, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that civil dispute resolution mechanisms for defamation have to constitute a restriction on speech. People can still say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. They can merely be called out if they are lying.

Is libel not a civil offence? I.e. the court case is person vs person not state vs person. You confront the person lying in court and if on the balance of probabilities they can't demonstrate what they said to be true then they pay you compensation (plus costs). No one goes to jail, no fines are levied. The government's role is to provide a judge (and potential jury) and court room.

I'm not massively familiar with what happens when someone doesn't pay a debt. As I understand it though. A civil case is heard, bailiff's arrive at the debtors property and their possessions are re-posed until the debt is cleared. These remain civil proceedings not criminal.

You can already say this and not get in trouble, though it definitely wouldn't help your case in the event that a rejected black applicant chose to sue you for discrimination. The plaintiff would need to show a preponderance of evidence that they were passed over specifically because of their race and they would've surely been hired otherwise. A general statement showing a dislike for black people isn't sufficient. Discrimination is a civil, not a criminal, offense.

IANAL, this is to the best of my knowledge.

All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me.

>if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up.

They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers that allow them to get up next to the line without crossing it.

>And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void.

Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits.

>Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry.

Freedom of speech still means you are held to that speech when you sign it as a contract. Trying to stretch contract laws as being related to freedom of speech is showing an extreme attempt to stretch.

>a simplistic

It has far more thought to it than the notion that free speech means contract law is void or that discrimination is legalized.

>extremist

Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist.

>that doesn't survive contact with the real world

Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle, no right you have will protect you from someone or something that wants your resources.

>You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech

Yes, for the issues that those in power don't reall care about. Those are the bread and circus; hope we enjoy it.

>pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.

Appeal to popularity? All goverments also engage in rights violations that we would not stand to defend.

I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say.

>if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers

I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside.

> Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits.

True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it.

> Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist.

Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream.

> Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle

Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world.

> Appeal to popularity?

No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up.

You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.

I was saying that under current law, I've been called far worse (and by people who were serious and not just demostrating their point).

>I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside.

Someone in the HOA could already do that. I could potentially sue, but that could also make things worse depending upon the damage done. Even falsely accusing someone of a crime and having them arrested is often not punished except in the case of a repeat offender.

>Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it.

They would not be penalized on that point. It would just add further evidence to a discrimination suit, and if that is the only evidence the suit actually provided, then the suit should fail. Namely, such a statement would be important in showing if a person would have motive, but motive alone is not sufficient to convict someone for discrimination.

>We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured

Depending upon what you mean by murder and torture, we may have far less of such a right than freedom of speech. All laws are enforced at gunpoint proxy (even if the penalty for breaking some law isn't immediately enforced at gunpoint, there is a chain of consequences that will eventually lead to such). And solitary confinement sounds like torture to me.

>No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so.

In the areas that are pre-approved. You think the government really cares about all the fighting about sexism or gay rights? Even terrorism doesn't matter outside of being the trojan horse for draconian laws.

>It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.

Chillings effects have already begun to be noticed.

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds, but I had to respond to this. It's a standard part of the libertarian rhetoric, and it's intended to make people fear laws just for the sake of it.

And it's intellectually dishonest. In this thread you're arguing that laws should be made to stop the government infringing upon freedom of speech. How, exactly, does that get enforced at gunpoint? If the courts forget themselves and decide to hear a defamation case? Or if the government passes a law that restricts speech, in violation of their free-speech law? Would you have the MPs that voted 'aye' frogmarched off? How does a law limiting the actions of government get 'enforced at gunpoint proxy'?

Similarly, there are plenty of other laws where this doesn't happen. There are laws that companies can break where no person is at risk of prison. It's why there are limited liability companies. And there are laws to give people incentives - here in Australia, the government encourages voluntary payments into your own superannuation, and will co-contribute to some degree. How do you enforce that law at gunpoint? What bizarre chain of events would involve putting anyone at gunpoint because a citizen voluntarily put money into their own superannuation?

There are plenty of laws that aren't 'enforced at gunpoint', even with following a ridiculous, tortured chain of events. Stop spreading libertarian FUD.

>And it's intellectually dishonest.

You haven't demonstrated such.

>How, exactly, does that get enforced at gunpoint?

>How does a law limiting the actions of government get 'enforced at gunpoint proxy'?

Generally a complex system which starts in the courts, wiht the courts making a ruling that applies increasing penalties. Those who continue to ignore such penalties will eventually reach the point of being in contempt of court and either fired or perhaps jailed (it depends upon factors such as who it is). Take the example of a clerk of court refusing to award a marriage license to a gay couple after a federal appeals court struck down a state ban. Something bad is going to happen, which includes losing their job. If they fail to remove themselves from the premise after losing their job, they could be charged with trespassing. If their superior doesn't fire them and continues to pay them, then it gets messier but there are channels, albeit slow moving ones.

Simply put, if there is any point that you can thumb your nose at the court and tell them you are going to ignore them, then it isn't a law, only a suggestion.

Of course, there is a problem when the government does do this (look at three letter agencies ignoring court rulings or otherwise creating secret courts to bypass them). But, at such a point, the laws prohibiting what they are doing are no longer enforced and are thus no longer laws.

>It's why there are limited liability companies.

Who can have their assets seized. What happens when the government comes after an LLC's account due to violations and someone gets in the way?

>And there are laws to give people incentives - here in Australia, the government encourages voluntary payments into your own superannuation, and will co-contribute to some degree. How do you enforce that law at gunpoint?

>What bizarre chain of events would involve putting anyone at gunpoint because a citizen voluntarily put money into their own superannuation?

These are laws about what the government will do if you do X. What happens when someone refuses to credit an account because the account belongs to a minority? They would be fired, but if their supervisor refuses to fire them, it could go to court, where you end up with contempt of court. Refuse to show up in court and you'll be arrested. Resist, and out come the guns.

>There are plenty of laws that aren't 'enforced at gunpoint'

You are making the mistake of considering laws that never get to guns drawn because even unreasonable people don't want to escalate the situation (as well as thinking that 'if A does X, then B does Y' as being laws about A doing X instead of laws about B doing Y).

>Stop spreading libertarian FUD.

Nothing libertarian about it except for how it is worded. If you ignore the rule of law, there will be escalation til physical force is involved. Most people just submit or cut deals long before that happens, but they do so knowing that to resist will escalate.

You missed what I meant by intellectually dishonest. I gave you a few examples of laws that aren't 'gunpoint-enforced', including laws around incentives to do things. Your rebuttal was to invoke a long string of events that eventually resulted in 'trespassing', and invoking 'gunpoint' for that. It's not, however, gunpoint for the original law.

> If you ignore the rule of law, there will be escalation til physical force is involved

This is also part of what I mean by 'intellectually dishonest'. You're claiming that all laws are 'gunpoint' and therefore de facto immoral because you can concoct a long chain of unusual events that ends up with some form of physical law enforcement... but your own requirement for 'all speech should be free' falls into exactly the same pattern. You concoct some government official who refuses to pay into a minority's account, loses their job, refuses to depart the premises. But your own FOS laws do nothing to alter that chain. Slot in a FOS violation for the government official instead of paying into an account, and the chain remains unchanged. From your own reasoning, this means your FOS law is 'gunpoint enforced'.

It's usual for this style of libertarian FUD - claim all laws other than their own proposals are 'violent' or 'at gunpoint', and then skip over the details that their own suggested systems rely on exactly the same mechanisms. And yes, it is libertarian to say things like 'all laws are violent'. No other group takes this baroque standpoint; it's pure libertarian rhetoric. And seriously, laws around governmnet co-contribution are 'violent' because a government employee might lose their job if they don't comply?

See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation).

Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods.

However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating.

----

EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best):

...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious.

> So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted.

No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information.

> And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.

...no?

NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs.

The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone.

I really don't think you are getting the concept that:

A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction.

B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]

It seems that you are casually ignoring the points I made in my third and fourth paragraphs.

Anyway, you can argue against the UK's new laws without requiring complete purism in freedom of speech. But my point was that an absolutist stance is simplistic. So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. They can't lose their jobs - or even suffer reduced chance of advancement - because that would be seen as a punishment, a restriction of speech. iscrimination point I raised.

And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.

There's all sorts of sticky areas where extreme purist views get sullied from contact with the real world.