discussion- repeal the anti-defamation law

Well the recent misuse of the anti-defamtion law, against our Lady Duchess Allikath, is further prove that it needs to be repealed. It is a law which is nearly impossible to prove except in the most agregious cases; as such it is too tempting to misuse it either in anger, as I myself, did or for political reasons. Even with the purist of intentions, it is a bad law, which stiffles free expression and sullies reputations, even in the absence of a conviction.

I disagree. Anti-defamation laws are needed to, for instance, prohibit people from making false accusations or outrageous charges. Since truth is an absolute defense against being found guilty of defamation, I see no benefit to removing the law, save only that political campaigns wouldn't be hampered by requiring that facts be used in argument; any charge would be permissible save only those which would violate the rules of the forum.

All counties have such laws, as do our HoP and HoL. HRH Brianna urged Krelian to file the charges to which Lady Budicca has referred, and I've been informed (as has the rest of the council) that there are security matters involved in that drama, so I will say no more about it.

I urge the council to think carefully, for the lack of such a law could open the doors to anybody making any sort of accusation at any time, with no requirement that proof be shown, and no recourse under the law. Consider the recent accusations of Julius Octavius in the Somerset Inn, that this council was systematically using the county treasury for its own gain. Too, there would be no effective legal barrier to literal name-calling during election campaigns (save for the actions of the poor battered censors), nor to accusations that some member of council is stealing from the treasury, nor to any other heinous charges that anyone might think up whether the result of a bad dream, a bad acid trip, a bad digestion or a simple bad temper.

Anti-defamation laws are a part of all civilized societies, for the reasons I've outlined above. Removing ours would open all of us, all members of election lists, all mayors, indeed, all the people of Somerset, to unfounded libelous charges of the most outrageous nature with no means of defense.

I would be open to amendments to the law, should such be proposed. But to its repeal? Never!

Secret evidence? The, so called, security matter, seems more like an excuse to ambarrasse our Lady Dutchess with unsupportable accusations, to me. If they can be supported then post the evidence! There is no procedure for convicting one with secret evidence and I can only pray that the day never comes when Somerset would allow such a farse!

I thought this was for discussion of the law, not a specific event. I agree with Chardonnay. Perhaps the law needs amendment, it does not need to be repealed. I have seen to many examples of liable to want to go naked before the storm.

Perhaps we should think about a law against "slap lawsuits". If the judge determines that a case has been brought without proof or a chance of winning, purely to injure the party against whom the case has been filed, then the person bringing the case will be prosecuted for waisting the courts time. Perhaps a minor crime, with fine and apology. Again the judge would have to be reading the mind and intent of the perpetrator, but we could craft such a law to try and prevent this sort of thing from being done.

Gregarious wrote:

I thought this was for discussion of the law, not a specific event. I agree with Chardonnay. Perhaps the law needs amendment, it does not need to be repealed. I have seen to many examples of liable to want to go naked before the storm.

Perhaps we should think about a law against "slap lawsuits". If the judge determines that a case has been brought without proof or a chance of winning, purely to injure the party against whom the case has been filed, then the person bringing the case will be prosecuted for waisting the courts time. Perhaps a minor crime, with fine and apology. Again the judge would have to be reading the mind and intent of the perpetrator, but we could craft such a law to try and prevent this sort of thing from being done.

You have expressed, well, one of the many problems with the ant-defamation law. How can any judge be asked to understand the intent of ones thoughts, so accurately, that he or she would sanction them and bar them from political office?

That is something I count on. I hope that this sort of case is VERY hard to prove. It should be, but that does not mean we should not have one. If fact I think it is necessary to ahve to prevent absolutely foundless accusations that would be simple to prove in court.

It is too easy to abuse, in order to sullie someones reputation. I don't think it can be reformed; it should be repealed.

I am not afraid of false accusations. People will forget about them if no evidence is produced, and it is the liar who will look bad eventually. I feel we have enough forum rules and laws about flaming and personal insult to cope with anything serious, without needing to add a law about defamation of groups products and anything else in game.

I am afraid of being prosecuted and found guilty because someone misinterprets my intent and zeal for improvements as harmful, either mistakenly or on purpose. I am also afraid of 'security' being quoted as a reason for not presenting all the facts in a lawsuit.

We seem to be turning into a county where people are all afraid - either afraid of false accusations, or afraid of being accused of defamation unfairly, or afraid of doing or saying something wrong accidentally or in impassioned haste and then getting prosecuted as a result. Perhaps the only ones unafraid are the real criminals and liars. But shutting people up with lawsuits and possible bans as a result does not cause anyone to enjoy the game more, it discourages lively debate and role played repartée.

The current defamation law seems to me to have crossed a boundary where the law tries not only to uphold the truth, but may be used to control opinion and judge intent.

I might support a better defined, less subjective, more narrowly defined law against defamation, but as it stands I feel the county is better off without the present law than with it and would support a motion for its repeal.

Gregarious's suggestion that judges should be able to rule against frivolous or 'slap' lawsuits has some merit, perhaps we need to consider the possible assignation of 'court costs' by the judge to cover these cases.

budicca wrote:

It is too easy to abuse, in order to sullie someones reputation. I don't think it can be reformed; it should be repealed.

Milady, the origional remarks that cause the suit to be filed sully the reputation of the plantiff. You are so worried about saving the reputation of the accused, since it is your friend and duchess, that you fail to see the logic in this law. You yourself are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed as it sullies one's reputation. Yet, by your logic, someone should be allowed of accusing another person of blackmail and being associated with a rebel army, things that sully a person's reputation MUCH more than having a case brought against them. Yet by your logic, the accuser should be allowed to say whatever they wish to sully the reputation of the accused, yet should the accused take action against the accuser this is wrong as it sullies the reputation of the accusor. This logic is severly flawed and just plain wrong.

Also, everyone says "security this" and "security that" because i mentioned it in the PP thread. I didn't post screenshots because since we were discussing a rebel army, something that would be a security risk should all the information get out, I chose not to post them as I could easily be charged with treason for divulging state secrets had I done so. However, it is incredibly illogical to say I am hiding evidence. Frankly, the only witnesses were counsilors, and OH MY GOD!!! Guess what guys, the only people who try the case (witnesses, PP, and Judge) are counsilors and have access to the posts in question. Go figure, I mean I did say that, but of course, my trying not to divulge state secrets is obviously hiding evidence, when anyone that the evidence would be worth hiding it from can still see it.

Now then, it is obvious, as NO ONE but LoF supports the repeal or removal of this law that THIS is the true political manouver, not my filing the lawsuit. You simply seek to save your Duchess and grasp on power because if she is found guilty, she must step down, yet you accuse me of political manouvering because I filed a lawsuit after being accused of blackmail and being in cahoots with a rebel army. She has by far, sullied my reputation MUCH more than my lawsuit has sullied hers.

I support no changes or repeal of this law as it is very necessary.

krelian wrote:

budicca wrote:

It is too easy to abuse, in order to sullie someones reputation. I don't think it can be reformed; it should be repealed.

Milady, the origional remarks that cause the suit to be filed sully the reputation of the plantiff. You are so worried about saving the reputation of the accused, since it is your friend and duchess, that you fail to see the logic in this law. You yourself are arguing that it shouldn't be allowed as it sullies one's reputation. Yet, by your logic, someone should be allowed of accusing another person of blackmail and being associated with a rebel army, things that sully a person's reputation MUCH more than having a case brought against them. Yet by your logic, the accuser should be allowed to say whatever they wish to sully the reputation of the accused, yet should the accused take action against the accuser this is wrong as it sullies the reputation of the accusor. This logic is severly flawed and just plain wrong.

Also, everyone says "security this" and "security that" because i mentioned it in the PP thread. I didn't post screenshots because since we were discussing a rebel army, something that would be a security risk should all the information get out, I chose not to post them as I could easily be charged with treason for divulging state secrets had I done so. However, it is incredibly illogical to say I am hiding evidence. Frankly, the only witnesses were counsilors, and OH MY GOD!!! Guess what guys, the only people who try the case (witnesses, PP, and Judge) are counsilors and have access to the posts in question. Go figure, I mean I did say that, but of course, my trying not to divulge state secrets is obviously hiding evidence, when anyone that the evidence would be worth hiding it from can still see it.

Now then, it is obvious, as NO ONE but LoF supports the repeal or removal of this law that THIS is the true political manouver, not my filing the lawsuit. You simply seek to save your Duchess and grasp on power because if she is found guilty, she must step down, yet you accuse me of political manouvering because I filed a lawsuit after being accused of blackmail and being in cahoots with a rebel army. She has by far, sullied my reputation MUCH more than my lawsuit has sullied hers.

I support no changes or repeal of this law as it is very necessary.

If you are going to sullies someones reputation in public you can not use secret evidence that only the judge and PP can see. It must be there for all of Somerset to see! Thant is basic rights for all men and women in Somerset!

Can we please split this thread to separate the personal argument between Krelian and others from the point of the thread, which is to discuss the defamation law?

you mess it, you deal with it,me i will not split ... time to learn self discipline folks

I did not split it because it actually is still on topic in spite of the ("mess" )disruptions.

krelian wrote:

Now then, it is obvious, as NO ONE but LoF supports the repeal or removal of this law that THIS is the true political manouver, not my filing the lawsuit. You simply seek to save your Duchess and grasp on power because if she is found guilty, she must step down, yet you accuse me of political manouvering because I filed a lawsuit after being accused of blackmail and being in cahoots with a rebel army. She has by far, sullied my reputation MUCH more than my lawsuit has sullied hers.

LoF's platform during this current election included a repeal of this law, so to say the only reason we are opposing it is to "protect" Somerset's Duchess is blatantly misguided. Unless, of course, everyone in LoF could see into the future (that would be neat). Now on to the topic of the law in general.

This law has only been used (please correct me if I am wrong) in recent history AGAINST councilors. I believe it has also only been alleged BY Somerset Councilors. Councilors of one party alleging that a Councilor of a different party defamed them. This makes it seem as though this law is only applied for political reasons. I think the good People of Somerset are sick of party-before-issues politics.

But we cannot only judge a law on how it has been practiced in the past, we must also think about it's substance.

Quote :

Art. 2.2.1. : An act of defamation is defined as any form of written or verbal communication that attacks the personal or professional honour of any citizen of the Duchy.
The act of defamation is a light crime and the sentence shall be a public apology with a fine of 1 pound to 200 pounds, depending on the consequences of the defamation on the victim. In case the act of defamation is directed towards a noble, civil servant or military officer, or is a repeat offense, the sentence shall be jail time.

For the proposal of this article defamation is definite has defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

I personally believe that this law should be repealed, because accusations without evidence should be assumed false anyway. A false accusations is just that: false. I think a law such as this one instills fear in the People, who feel they must tread on eggshells.

If not repealed, however, the law must at least be revised. It is too broadly worded and it allows for a very large spectrum of punishment. (ooc. Also, as we all know, our quick written word (i.e. internet speak) cannot carry intent as our spoken word can. Meaning, intention, and purpose are all weakened, and therefor, defamation can easily be misused.) I do not think people should be victim of liable or slander, but I also do not think that the spirit of this law, as currently written, offers that protection.


For Somerset!
Rebo

People will believe the most outlandish stories if spoken by the right persons.

There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent pure lies from being spoken without fear of repercussions. If unsuccessful in prevention then punishment must ensue.

Politics has been a blood sport in Somerset to long. Is it any wonder that this law has been tested between political rivals. Somerset remains fairly peaceful until it come to politics. Where would you expect to see this sort of thing? It is not indicative of political gamesmanship it is indicative of how the parties have chosen to run their campaigns in the past.

We are passionate about politics in Somerset. We fight for what we believe. Sometimes we fight a little too hard. Sometimes it is good to have something that reins you in a little.

look repeal that laws and we will return of far west before that laws here some makes extraordinary story of suppose cooruption and other thing like that. And believe me, want me to proof how fast false rumor can become true in the mind of people if spoke by the right person.

It's very easy, i know i see it in irl politic everyday and know pretty well how to do it if needed.

So No forget about remove it, but one thing can be a copromise...

Anyone famillar with speaker corner?

I said we build a speaker corner in the offiste forum here the defemation laws don'T apply ...

people are warn before reading it, and the only restirction is to respect offsite forum rules since they are giving by the forum provider, that means no swearing and no gang bash flamming ...

Is that a good compromise...

oh yeah that corner only open to somerset citizens ...

I confess to a lack of experience in starting false rumours or deliberately trying to make people unhappy or angry or upset, so such a speaker's corner forum would be of no use to me at all. Furthermore, I have no interest in gaining such experience, and feel it is never needed, so I wouldn't read it myself, though I might help by letting other people know whose idea it was in case they also enjoyed that kind of thing. It would be interesting to see who would post in there.

But seriously, the repeal of the defamation law isn't about encouraging false rumours. It's about restoring balance and removing fear and recognising the right of freedom of speech. If you are so experienced in real politics, or law, and feel this kind of law is necessary, how about finding a more reasonable statement prohibiting the kind of falsehoods some are afraid of and proposing that instead? And remember that we already have forum rules covering this subject. Then the council would debate the fairness and punishments appropriate to such offences based on the new proposal. I think the Regents Law Committee advisers may be able to help, since they seemed to have opinions about Somerset laws too.

But as it stands, I still feel that the risk of a few false claims, even ones 'spoken by the right person', whatever that might mean, is outweighed by the need for free speech and the current law should be repealed.

first they are not law adviser of the regent but some HOL people that overpass their right... and the regent have already a court and i can tell well mostly will agree with the defemation laws i am sure ... well many are from somerset .... well many are SNP in that court ...

And the current definition of the laws come for the must comment definition use for the US, Canada UK ect ect

And personally even with forum rules i can show you easy how you can make defemation with out violate forum rules ...

Freedom, is freedom to be wrong ... not to DO wrong ... defemation laws is about freedom, freedom to be not attacked by uncivilized people, rumors maker and other people specialize in strating fight and causing anger and discrediting good people ...

This law does not restrict free speech. Every Western Nation has liable and slander laws. I am sure most other nations do as well. But I am not a lawyer.

I for one do not fear lies. I just want recourse if it should happen.

People can make the forums uncomfortable enough without breaking forum rules already. They do not need the ability to lie through their teeth about others as well. There is nothing a censor can do about a lie about someone else's character if they do not flame or swear. We have had some experts at it in Somerset in the past.

In response to the public issue with this law and in the interest of achieving some compromise while still providing protections to all citizens I have been studying the laws of other counties in relation to this issue.

I have concluded that in my opinion Cornwall has the best laws that pertain to the issues we are debating in this law of ours.

I would be in favor of repealing our current defamation law in favor of one similarly written as the current Cornwall law reads

Below you will find a copy of the Cornwall Laws against Harassment.

Quote :

Chapter 10 - Harassment
Any person or persons who conspire(s) to intimidate, frighten or anger another without provocation or with maliciousness of intent shall be guilty of harassment.

I. Definition of Harassment
a. The act of causing distress to another person through words or actions after being warned that one’s words or actions have caused distress. This can include the use of foul language, comments that are considered insulting or provocative within one’s immediate surroundings, threatening or malicious comments directed at one or more persons, or any action designed to create an environment of hostility or repression.

II. Forms of Communication to be encompassed
a. All forms of communication within the county's jurisdiction shall be covered by this law including but not limited to speech in a public forum (this includes taverns and and scroller) and speech in a private forum (including mail and instant messaging by the nobility). This includes communication sent from another county to a person or persons currently within the county limits of Cornwall and communication sent to a person in another county by a person or persons within the county limits of Cornwall.
b. Any attempt to subvert this law using unlisted forms of communication for the purposes of harassment shall be considered to be covered in the previous article (2A).

III. Penalties for Harassment
a. Harassment shall be considered a serious or infamous crime at the discretion of the judge with the death penalty being an option for repeated offence. Penalties and Maximum punishments are specified under the Penal Code of Cornwall County (Book III, Chapter 2).
b. All harassment cases shall also be reported, by the public prosecutor, to the King for possible further sentencing.

I believe that such a county law as Cornwall has as above in tandem with the current forum laws in regard to RP should be quite sufficient to curb the reckless statement of false informations and accusations and at the same time allow for free speech of the truth.

I believe you are right Ellsbeth.
The cornwall law seems a much better solution.
Perhaps in conjunction with a law pertaining to punitive action for filing frivilous and wrongful law suits.

III. Penalties for Harassment
a. Harassment shall be considered a serious or infamous crime at the discretion of the judge with the death penalty being an option for repeated offence. Penalties and Maximum punishments are specified under the Penal Code of Cornwall County (Book III, Chapter 2).
b. All harassment cases shall also be reported, by the public prosecutor, to the King for possible further sentencing.

And some claim that people are afraid to speak because of the present law? This law seems much more draconian to me. But, again, I am not a lawyer.

I agree with both Ellsbeth and Greg here. I like the spirit of this law much more than the current defamation law, but the penalties seem far too harsh. I would be in favor of amending this law to outline the penalties differently.

Thank you Judge Ellsbeth for working on a compromise . It is this spirit of working together, offering compromises, and respectfully debating, which we should all be responsible for ushering into reality.

For Somerset!
Rebo

True Greg, it seemed a bit harsh as well to me but the parameters cause for a warning first and a much more serious offense for the charge to be filed unlike our present law.

Perhaps sentencing guidelines could be refined but I think the spirit of the law is right on.

well i like that laws it's have more teeth then mine