I wasn't talking in context of the UK. I was talking in context of the GP's all-or-nothing-free-speech position. In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.
In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.
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.)
I like how that sounds, but when I apply the same idea to other crimes I'm less sure. For example, if we take the position that doing potentially dangerous things is fine as long as they cause no damage, then it should be legal to deliberately shoot a gun at someone as long as you miss and they suffer no psychological damage. However, I've always felt it's a good thing that merely threatening someone with a gun is illegal due to the high risk of accidents.
Maybe it makes sense to special-case speech here, but I'm always more comfortable with ideas that don't need special-casing.
Yeah, but that makes the all-or-nothing proposition de-facto useless. Laws will be passed that punish unpopular speech not for their content, but for the harm they cause [society|our children|national security|economic security].
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.
Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time, how do you stop someone more socially powerful than you? You can call someone out and be right, but if they're more charismatic, more popular, or better at marketing their point than you, you still suffer.
> Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time
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.
Well this would be a debt from the person who has defamed you to you (and potentially a debt to the state for their share of the court costs).
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.
