• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Powers of Government ...

Henrin said:
Well, your french, so your views are expected. I can't say as a American libertarian I enjoyed my time in France nor do I find the laws there concerning just about everything agreeable. I will however say that you seriously need to reconsider what it means to be free.
Click to expand...

No, I am NOT French. Wanna see my American passport?

I've lived in France for a great many years. Moreover, there are perhaps 100K yanks living in France just like me. And they aren't here just because they like French-cuisine.

They like living in France because they have worked here and can benefit from its National Health Service, and/or the fact that their children can obtain a fine education nearly free, gratis and for nothing. The life-style is more relaxed, even if French bureaucracy works at a snail's pace.

You see? There ARE other alternatives available. Yanks in America simply have no idea that perhaps other countries perhaps do things better.

Yanks living abroad? Some estimates put it as high as 8 million. That's more than 38 other "states" in the US. See "American diaspora" here. And yet, we have no formal representation in either Chamber of Congress - but we are still obliged to make an American tax declaration!

So, my democratic opinion from abroad, is it as "legitimate" as an American national? You betcha - I sent my ballot off two weeks ago ...

Henrin said:
To be free you must be able to speak your mind as you please without censorship.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can disagree with both what you say and how you say it. That's my "freedom" too!

But Character Assassination is not "freedom of speech". Never was, never will be ...
 
Last edited:
Brewdog said:
And that's what I expect from travel. Sometimes it's not what you think it's going to be. It's not what you wanted. But travel can teach you more than any book or classroom ever can. When you meet people from other cultures, you learn so very much about the world.

And that's why this is my siggy. When I read it the first time, it really got to me. It still does. And I especially believe in the last part. "You take something with you. Hopefully, you leave something good behind." I hope that all the people I've hung out with and had beers with go home to Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, the UK, etc and say, "Man, I had beers with this guy from Mississippi, and he was pretty damn cool." :peace
Click to expand...

You are always welcome to some French Beer!

I prefer the German variety, but that has nothing to do with either conversation, friendship, amity - or a generally good time discussing politics, this last one being my preference because Europe has taught me a lot!
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
You see? There ARE other alternatives available. Yanks in America simply have no idea that perhaps other countries perhaps do things better.
Click to expand...
Whenever I hear some Yank saying "Rah rah America! Land of the FREE!" I just shake my head. You know that someone like this has either never left the country or their only experience outside the US was deployed by the military in some cesspool for some war the USA started. So of course they think the US is the greatest because all they've seen is Missouri and Trashcanistan.

When I'm overseas, I can just carry a beer on the street if I want without being molested by the government. That may seem like a small thing. But it's a damn good measure of how free you are. I can't even smoke a damn cigarette at a college football game without being ticketed and thrown out. But in Colombia, they smoke weed during the soccer matches in the stadium in front of the police! I couldn't believe it!

There is much more freedom in many other countries than besides the US. And don't give me the lame sh1t about, "Then move to Iran or North Korea, man!" Eff off with that sh1t. Is that who you want to compare your country to? Iran? North Korea? You must think the bar is set pretty low if that's who your country should strive to be better than.
 
Lafayette said:
If there is no political debate, then what is "freedom"?

A compound in Texas? Building a cabin in the wilds of Alasaka? What next?

As citizens of a nation, we have a duty to that nation. Without which the "nation" has no responsibility towards its citizens.

Why should my children die to protect your "freedoms", if you can't defend them publicly yourself?

Any democracy may seek "freedom", but it also has its "responsibilities". Foremost of which is to "participate in the democracy". Not just spectate it.
Click to expand...
I'm going to part ways with you here.

As a libertarian, I don't believe I owe society or my government anything. All I owe the human race is to not steal or use violence against anyone. And I do not do either.

My government surely owes ME. They pillage my earnings with the promise that they will protect me from foreign invaders and thieves and murderers, but I owe no allegiance to government or anyone else.

The government of our so-called free society works for ME. I do not work for THEM. And I do not owe them anything.
 
Brewdog said:
I'm going to part ways with you here.

As a libertarian, I don't believe I owe society or my government anything. All I owe the human race is to not steal or use violence against anyone. And I do not do either.

My government surely owes ME. They pillage my earnings with the promise that they will protect me from foreign invaders and thieves and murderers, but I owe no allegiance to government or anyone else.

The government of our so-called free society works for ME. I do not work for THEM. And I do not owe them anything.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Fine.

Mine is that "responsibility" is a two-way street between "US" and "THEM" ...

(Did you bring any beer?!? ;^)
 
Lafayette said:
That's your opinion. Fine.

Mine is that "responsibility" is a two-way street between "US" and "THEM" ...

(Did you bring any beer?!? ;^)
Click to expand...

I always have beer. I'm drinking beer right now. It's 4:36 here so I'm surely drinking. And I always bring enough beer to share.

See, we libertarians are some selfish asses, truly. But we're not bad guys. We bring beer for everyone. That's what we contribute to our neighbors. Good stories and beer. And we don't rob people and sh1t.
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, I happen to think there are very cogent reasons why there are laws on the books for scathing remarks regarding an individual's character. Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.

But, you come to France, and make that same comment here in a public place with witnesses. We'll see what happens to you.

Try it on the Internet if you are really so simple to think that a pseudonym hides your identity.

Just because you get away with verbal sarcasm in the US, doesn't mean it is "legal".

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial. Yeah, they sometimes lose their job - but go to jail?

Not often ...

Once again for your comprehension, the definition of "Character Assassination" from here:

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.

It aint necessarily so ...
Click to expand...


"Character assassination." That's what you're choosing to call criticism of the police, apparently.

Criticizing the government -- which includes the police -- is the chief reason for free speech to be protected.

You don't like that.

You hate freedom.

I don't know why, but you do.
 
Harshaw said:
"Character assassination." That's what you're choosing to call criticism of the police, apparently.

Criticizing the government -- which includes the police -- is the chief reason for free speech to be protected.

You don't like that.

You hate freedom.

I don't know why, but you do.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out where he said he hated the police and freedom.
 
Harshaw said:
"Character assassination." That's what you're choosing to call criticism of the police, apparently.

Criticizing the government -- which includes the police -- is the chief reason for free speech to be protected.

You don't like that.

You hate freedom.

I don't know why, but you do.
Click to expand...

Nope, we were talking about Hillary.

You've moved the "subject" to suit your needs.

Sticking to the subject is not your strong-point ...
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, the post that I interpreted. Feel free to elaborate.
Click to expand...

I'm under no obligation to feed your bizarre interpretations of what I said.
 
Lafayette said:
Nope, we were talking about Hillary.

You've moved the "subject" to suit your needs.

Sticking to the subject is not your strong-point ...
Click to expand...

OK, fine, you're talking about Hillary.

The same thing applies.

There's a reason it's much, much harder to win a defamation suit when it's about a public figure.

There's a reason it should be nearly impossible to do so when the public figure is political.

Why do you want to limit the right to criticize -- harshly, even -- politicians?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Allegory for the ideas in your post that I misinterpreted.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think your lunatic ravings are about. I don't care, either. Bye, now.
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, I happen to think there are very cogent reasons why there are laws on the books for scathing remarks regarding an individual's character. Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.

But, you come to France, and make that same comment here in a public place with witnesses. We'll see what happens to you.

Try it on the Internet if you are really so simple to think that a pseudonym hides your identity.

Just because you get away with verbal sarcasm in the US, doesn't mean it is "legal".

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial. Yeah, they sometimes lose their job - but go to jail?

Not often ...

Once again for your comprehension, the definition of "Character Assassination" from here:

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.

It aint necessarily so ...
Click to expand...

The definition of "character assassination" in your post is not criminal in the United States, and rightfully so, as I am not inclined to think someone, anyone, should be charged with a crime and risk a loss of freedom because of "character assassination."

However, the definition of "character assassination" in your post is not lawful in the U.S. in the sense one can be sued. (Character Assassination refers to the slandering or vicious personal verbal attack on a person with the intention of destroying or damaging that person’s reputation or confidence. In other words it is malicious verbal assaults designed to damage or tarnish the reputation of a person. Once done, these acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify. Therefore it is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures and important personalities, for many centuries after their death.

It involves a deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, especially by criticizing them in an unfair and dishonest way when they are not present. It can also involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, double speak, spreading of rumors, innuendo or deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It is a form of defamation.)

See New York Times v. Sullivan, which held:

State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.​

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.
Click to expand...

This is correct and the most logical and rational position. Free speech is not absolute and logically, should not be absolute.
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
The definition of "character assassination" in your post is not criminal in the United States, and rightfully so, as I am not inclined to think someone, anyone, should be charged with a crime and risk a loss of freedom because of "character assassination."

However, the definition of "character assassination" in your post is not lawful in the U.S. in the sense one can be sued.
Click to expand...

From Black's Law:
When to Sue for Defamation, Slander, and Libel

Defamation of character is an offense for which a complainant may be eligible to bring another party to civil court. There are two types of defamation: spoken defamation, or slander, and written defamation, or libel.

The balance that makes defamation law tricky is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right of free speech. On the other hand, people should not be able to ruin the lives of others by disseminating lies to force a business to shut down or compel the breakdown of a family.

Laws regarding defamation vary from state to state, but generally speaking, four criteria must be met for a slander or libel suit to stand a chance of success. The defamation, whether written or spoken, must be:

Demonstrably and objectively false
Seen or heard by a public third party
Quantifiably injurious
Unprivileged by law
Defamation Must Be Objectively False

It is not against the law to say mean things about somebody if they are either true or if they are entirely subjective. For instance, if a restaurant critic says that the food "was the worst I've had in a long time," the statement, while mean, is vague and subjective enough to avoid a lawsuit. Similarly, environmental activists who make the public aware of corporate practices that harm the earth can't be sued for defamation as long as they report on the facts.

Defamation Must Be Published

In order to prove injury, you have to prove that other people saw it, heard it, read it and had their minds changed because of the slanderous or libelous statements. Courts generally consider libel to be more serious than slander because writing lasts longer, though major television broadcasts often carry the same weight as major print or web publications because more people viewed them.

Defamation Must Cause Financial Injury

In order to determine the damages from a slander or libel suit, there must be quantifiable damages. Defamation of character damages a person's or company's reputation, and it must be proven that the damage to reputation correlated with a loss of money, property, relationship or was subject to harassment that led to any of the above losses.

Defamation Must Not Be Protected Speech

Examples of speech that is privileged and protected specifically by the U.S. Constitution from defamation laws include witness testimony in court and lawmaker statements in legislative chambers or official materials.

As long as the defamatory statements are published, false, injurious and unprivileged, you may have a case to file a defamation lawsuit. Of course, it is always advised to consult with a lawyer before taking any steps forward in your legal action.
Click to expand...
 
Lafayette said:
From Black's Law:
Click to expand...

The information at Black's Law, as presented in your post, is in agreement with my remark and not contrary to my point.

I reiterate, the definition of "character assassination," as conceptualized in your post, while rightfully not criminal in the U.S., is not lawful from the view one could be sued. Again, See New York Times v. Sullivan:



State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.​
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
The information at Black's Law, as presented in your post, is in agreement with my remark and not contrary to my point.

I reiterate, the definition of "character assassination," as conceptualized in your post, while rightfully not criminal in the U.S., is not lawful from the view one could be sued. Again, See New York Times v. Sullivan:
Click to expand...

Good for you.

Moving right along ...
 
Lafayette said:
Good for you.

Moving right along ...
Click to expand...

So, what the hell was the point in citing to the information at Black's Law? Providing, ostensibly, edifying information that wasn't edifying?

Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.
Click to expand...

Character assassination shouldn't be a crime. The potential loss of freedom and liberty because of harm to a reputation is a disproportionate response. Reputations can be rehabilitated, attempts to damage a reputation are not always successful, and on other occasions damage to a reputation is de minimis. Your suggestion character assassination should be criminalized is untenable.

And, as I noted previously, you are correct in stating "character assassination", as defined in your post, is not "free speech" from the view that in the U.S. one can be sued for "character assassination."

But, "character assassination" should not be criminalized.
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, I happen to think there are very cogent reasons why there are laws on the books for scathing remarks regarding an individual's character. Character assassination by means of sarcasm is not "freedom of speech". It is a willful crime that is not pursued in the US.

But, you come to France, and make that same comment here in a public place with witnesses. We'll see what happens to you.

Try it on the Internet if you are really so simple to think that a pseudonym hides your identity.

Just because you get away with verbal sarcasm in the US, doesn't mean it is "legal".

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial. Yeah, they sometimes lose their job - but go to jail?

Not often ...

Once again for your comprehension, the definition of "Character Assassination" from here:

Like a child who is brought up to think "anything goes", you are greatly mistaken to think that the guaranty of "free speech" allows you to say/print anything that comes into your mind.

It aint necessarily so ...
Click to expand...

In the US, the police kill kids for doing it and there is no need for a court-trial.
Click to expand...

Really? Of course, you can readily cite to an instance(s) in the U.S. of police killing "kids" on the basis the kids engaged in "character assassination." I want to read about, learn, know, and investigate in greater detail the incident(s) of law enforcement officers killing "kids" as a result of the kids engaging in "character assassination" in the U.S.

Yet, I find your argument of resorting to police killing kids on the basis of "character assassination," whether factually accurate or unadulterated B.S., flawed. So, the cause for the shooting isn't the fact the adult, in a police uniform, expected to uphold the law, sworn to uphold the law, expected to act like a responsible adult, is shooting at and killing kids but instead the cause for shooting and killing the kid engaged in character assassination is the character assassination Really? So, based on the presentation of your argument, the police officer could reasonably say, "The kids speech, specifically his character assassination, compelled me to shoot and kill him." The kid's character assassination cause the officer shoot and kill the kid? And, as a result, the character assassination cannot be tolerated because adult, police officers, simply cannot control themselves when it comes to character assassination and shoot to kill those engaged in this kind of speech. So, dispense with this particular kind of speech.

Are we to actually believe the police officer, an adult, expected and anticipated to act, behave, and react as an adult, sworn to uphold the law and expected to do so, just absolutely cannot control themselves when it comes to character assassination speech such that they lose control of their emotions and actions and shoot to kill the kids engaging in the character assassination? I am doubtful, especially when one considers the vast amounts of inflammatory speech and message directed at the police and the police are, amazingly, capable of controlling their actions and not shooting and killing the messenger(s) of this other inflammatory speech. I am quite certain if they can control their actions and emotions in regards to other inflammatory speech, then they are expected to and capable of doing so with character assassination.

In addition, a multitude of other non-law enforcement people encounter character assassination, including from kids, without shooting to kill the messenger(s), thereby demonstrating they, and people in general, can control themselves even when confronted with character assassination. I am not convinced being a police officer suddenly renders them (officers), on the basis of being a police officer, incapable of doing what so many other people are capable of doing, which is using restraint, i.e. not shooting to kill, the messenger of character assassination.

You have committed the fallacy of false cause here and scapegoated free speech. Apparently we must censor and criminalize a particular kind of speech because, according to you, the speech is character assassination, causing others to respond violently and killing the messenger. In this instance, the proper conduct is to criminalize the conduct of those idiots responding violently to speech as opposed to scapegoating the speech and criminalizing and censoring the speech.
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
Really? Of course, you can readily cite to an instance(s) in the U.S. of police killing "kids" on the basis the kids engaged in "character assassination." I want to read about, learn, know, and investigate in greater detail the incident(s) of law enforcement officers killing "kids" as a result of the kids engaging in "character assassination" in the U.S.

Yet, I find your argument of resorting to police killing kids on the basis of "character assassination," whether factually accurate or unadulterated B.S., flawed. So, the cause for the shooting isn't the fact the adult, in a police uniform, expected to uphold the law, sworn to uphold the law, expected to act like a responsible adult, is shooting at and killing kids but instead the cause for shooting and killing the kid engaged in character assassination is the character assassination Really? So, based on the presentation of your argument, the police officer could reasonably say, "The kids speech, specifically his character assassination, compelled me to shoot and kill him." The kid's character assassination cause the officer shoot and kill the kid? And, as a result, the character assassination cannot be tolerated because adult, police officers, simply cannot control themselves when it comes to character assassination and shoot to kill those engaged in this kind of speech. So, dispense with this particular kind of speech.

Are we to actually believe the police officer, an adult, expected and anticipated to act, behave, and react as an adult, sworn to uphold the law and expected to do so, just absolutely cannot control themselves when it comes to character assassination speech such that they lose control of their emotions and actions and shoot to kill the kids engaging in the character assassination? I am doubtful, especially when one considers the vast amounts of inflammatory speech and message directed at the police and the police are, amazingly, capable of controlling their actions and not shooting and killing the messenger(s) of this other inflammatory speech. I am quite certain if they can control their actions and emotions in regards to other inflammatory speech, then they are expected to and capable of doing so with character assassination.

In addition, a multitude of other non-law enforcement people encounter character assassination, including from kids, without shooting to kill the messenger(s), thereby demonstrating they, and people in general, can control themselves even when confronted with character assassination. I am not convinced being a police officer suddenly renders them (officers), on the basis of being a police officer, incapable of doing what so many other people are capable of doing, which is using restraint, i.e. not shooting to kill, the messenger of character assassination.

You have committed the fallacy of false cause here and scapegoated free speech. Apparently we must censor and criminalize a particular kind of speech because, according to you, the speech is character assassination, causing others to respond violently and killing the messenger. In this instance, the proper conduct is to criminalize the conduct of those idiots responding violently to speech as opposed to scapegoating the speech and criminalizing and censoring the speech.
Click to expand...

You must be a good cook.

You know how to mix-up everything.

Over and outta here ...
 
NotreDame said:
So, what the hell was the point in citing to the information at Black's Law? Providing, ostensibly, edifying information that wasn't edifying?
Click to expand...

You kept saying that libel and slander were not against the law.

They are not against criminal law, but you can sue for reparations to your "person".

The point is minor.

M... r... a...
 
Brewdog said:
That's way too much money. And it's what we have now on average. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. 35% plus state corporate tax can be 45% tax. And our voters are like, "F=ck yeah! Make those corporate b@stards pay!"

And then all the jobs leave to go overseas. Yay America.
Click to expand...

"Soak the rich!" has always appealed to the dim and envious, which is just why collectivist politicians have found it such a useful theme for so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom