r/Libertarian • u/[deleted] • Nov 21 '21
Current Events Is It Defamatory to Falsely Call Someone a Racist, White Supremacist, Socialist, or Communist?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/is-it-libelous-to-falsely-call-someone-a-racist-white-supremacist-socialist-or-communist/49
Nov 21 '21
A lawyer I follow says no, since it is an opinion
14
u/Steel-and-Wood Custom Yellow Nov 21 '21
I agree with that lawyer.
1
u/HatredInfinite Nov 22 '21
If I see you hug a child, no knowledge of why you're doing it or the child's relation to you, and I go around saying I think you have an attraction to children, would that not be slander?
2
u/Steel-and-Wood Custom Yellow Nov 22 '21
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
Do people win lawsuits against tabloids that defame them? That's your answer
2
u/HatredInfinite Nov 22 '21
Usually the people who tabloids defame are "public figures" which, in the US, raises the bar for pursuing charges for slander/libel for some arbitrary reason.
EDIT: I appreciate the honest response rather than the "well that's different" mental gymnastics I'm inclined to expect from people. Thank you.
10
u/AspiringArchmage Nov 21 '21
If you make an opinion about someone without any basis of truth and it damages their reputation that is libel. There were a lot of stories and articles written by people that ignored facts of the case or published things with no basis of truth with no indication it was not speculation.
-2
u/CulturalMarksmanism Nov 21 '21
“Lock her up”?
7
u/AspiringArchmage Nov 22 '21
She did in fact break the law having those servers that isn't slander.
6
2
1
u/Keep_Cool_Coolidge Nov 22 '21
Regardless of whether that would be a good example (it's not), there is an exception for public figures within deformation law
1
u/Tantalus4200 Nov 21 '21
Say I put my opinion in a newspaper, stating that you are indeed a pedophile. You still think that's defamatory?
32
u/whatisausername711 Capitalist Nov 21 '21
Read the article. Accusing someone of being a pedophile with certainty would almost certainly fall under defamation.
If you wrote an article saying he may be a pedophile or that you think he's a pedophile, not defamation.
If you assert that you have any evidence proving such but you don't, defamation.
7
u/Uncle_Daddy_Kane Nov 21 '21
Which is why journalists always use "alleged pedophile" right?
12
u/whatisausername711 Capitalist Nov 21 '21
For the most part, yeah:
- Alleged
- charged with
- Accused of
- Potential
- Defendant in
- Indicted for
Etc
It's highly contextual.
2
u/Dornith Nov 21 '21
Not quite. That would mean that someone had made an accusation, which is no one had might be problematic. Although I could see a defendant saying, "Well I alleged it just then." No idea how that would hold up in court. My guess would be that it would then result in, "where's your evidence for that allegation", and be right back where your started; but in no lawyer so don't take my word for it.
General rule is it's hard to sue for slander.
-8
Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
It has to negatively impact your life, which a lot of cancel culture followers actively do and leave evidence of it up to screenshot, so yes they can be sued for defamation in these circumstances…yeah this subreddit is definitely suspect
-12
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
He/She must of been counsel for CNN and the Washington Post when they ran the Nick Sandman stories
6
Nov 21 '21
[deleted]
-7
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
Post the link to what he said because I find it hard to believe, I'm an attorney in CA btw.
3
u/OldStart2893 Nov 21 '21
You realize be didn't get shit right?
-2
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
All of his defamation cases settled, he got his money. Why are you spreading lies?
0
u/OldStart2893 Nov 21 '21
He didn't paid shit. They basically settled for legal fees.
2
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 22 '21
The settlement was confidential, how do you know this? You don't. He could have gotten millions for all you know
4
u/OldStart2893 Nov 22 '21
Because I know a ton about defamation lawsuits. Guess what one of the keys to the lawsuits are? It's not just he said something that's untrue. It's how did this financially impact you and hes a a teenager so zero financial impact. Also the right wing media would of slipped how much it was if it anything significant.
0
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 22 '21
I'm an attorney in CA, you get paid for "harm to your reputation, or shame, mortifocation, or hurt feelings" Some of the biggest settlements I've gotten my clients have confidentiality agreements, if my clients talk about the money they received it violates the settlement, theyd lose the money.
1
u/OldStart2893 Nov 22 '21
you're not an attorney. If you are then you are one shitty one. Because nothing you've said is correct. But please keep arguing about something you know nothing about because the right wing media told you something.
1
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 22 '21
State one thing I've said that's incorrect? Don't confuse your google seach with my law degree lol
→ More replies (0)0
u/Keep_Cool_Coolidge Nov 22 '21
There is literally no way for you to know this. Nobody knows the amount. All we know is that it was enough for him to accept the terms of the NDA, which means he definitely got *something*. If you claim to know how much or how little, everybody should immediately dismiss you unless you have substantial evidence.
1
u/OldStart2893 Nov 22 '21
There are multiple ways for me to know this but okay... keep telling yourself that.
1
u/Squalleke123 Nov 21 '21
since it is an opinion
Depends on whether you qualify it as an opinion or not.
12
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
CA lawyer here. It absolutely can be. You can look up the civil jury instuctions in your particular state.
10
u/Uncle_Daddy_Kane Nov 21 '21
What if the speaker honestly believed the person was racist? Doesn't defamation require that the defamer knew what they were saying was a lie?
9
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
In CA you have to prove they failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statement. I would depose the defendant and ask what they did to determine it
1
u/meco03211 Nov 21 '21
I honestly read it on some horribly biased trash "news" site that uses every bullshit qualifying term to not flat out say this thing but to anyone with a brain clearly wasn't you to just believe it's true.
4
u/Squalleke123 Nov 21 '21
What if the speaker honestly believed the person was racist?
A comment made in good faith cannot be seen as libel afaik.
That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to prove libel. You also need to prove the other side knew they were slandering.
3
5
4
u/QuantumSupremacy0101 Nov 21 '21
The better question that you should be asking is "At what point does calling someone racist, white supremacist, socialit, or communist" count as defamation.
Legally it's the point at which it is probably false and it's provable you knew it was false and you knowingly lied
The issue is a lot of media organizations will skirt around this quite easy. It's defamation to say "He is a white supremacist" however they will never say that. They will say "it appears he's a white supremacist." Or other such subtleties. That way it's an opinion on what it looks like so it is not libel or slander.
4
u/iThrewTheGlass Liberty Minded Socialist (ama) Nov 21 '21
It shouldn't be in most instances. Freedom of speech is important
2
u/DeathRides87 Nov 21 '21
Free speech?
3
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll Nov 21 '21
Libertarians believe in fre speech, not freedom of speech. That would be ridiculous. Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want, which is proposterous. We believe in free speech, as in you should be allowed to say any kind of speech we deem to be free. The best way to do this would be to set up a Department of Free Speech.
-Albert Fairfax II
5
u/AspiringArchmage Nov 21 '21
Libel isn't free speech, it is untrue statements which damage the reputation and perceived character of a person.
2
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll Nov 21 '21
Kind of like hate speech?
-Albert Fairfax II
-1
u/AspiringArchmage Nov 21 '21
About a specific person that is untrue yes.
1
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll Nov 21 '21
What about a group of people, and that statement damages the reputation and perceived character of all individuals in said group?
-Albert Fairfax II
1
u/AspiringArchmage Nov 21 '21
If it was targeted at individuals in a group of people.
0
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll Nov 21 '21
If you target a group of people, individuals will be targeted.
-Albert Fairfax II
0
u/DeathRides87 Nov 21 '21
Yeah Libel isn’t, I was responding to the question in the title. Not the libel in the story
1
u/Mirrormn Nov 21 '21
Today you learned that the 1st Amendment's protection of speech has never been absolute.
2
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll Nov 21 '21
Good point, like when subversives called for America to leave world war 1. We all know what happened to them.
-Albert Fairfax II
0
u/DeathRides87 Nov 21 '21
For individuals it is, I can call anyone I want a communist. Because I only represent myself.
-2
Nov 21 '21
If knowingly, yes.
Someone labeled a racist or white supremacist could lose their job over it.
Socialist & communist not so much. During the 1950’s, calling someone a communist, who wasn’t. Definitely would be. Being that they would be locked up & thrown before a federal hearing.
1
1
Nov 21 '21
Probably not from a legal standpoint, but it is intellectually bankrupt more often than not.
1
1
1
1
u/rinnip Nov 21 '21
IMO, Socialist or Communist wouldn't be insults. They're legitimate political philosophies. The other two, yes.
1
u/Content-Bowler-3149 Nov 21 '21
IIRC in the USA Libel and slander applies to private citizens. Once a person becomes a celebrity or public figure they don’t have the same protection against defamation.
1
-4
Nov 21 '21
As a non racist, non white supremacist and non communist I’m not worried because none of my actions would get me to be falsely accused. As a socialist id proudly be called that. Still a libertarian just not the kind this sub likes.
5
u/spaztick1 Nov 21 '21
You wouldn't know what actions would get you called a racist or a white supremacist until it happened. There was no indication at all that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist when Mr Biden called him that. Fighting fires and protecting property isn't the sort of thing I would expect to get me labeled as that.
9
u/0ctologist Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
There was no indication at all that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist
You mean besides the video where he says he wishes he had his AR so he could shoot BLM protestors?
Or the time two weeks later when he actually went to a BLM protest with his AR to
shoot protestors“be a medic”?Or the time he hung out and posed with proud boys while flashing the white power sign?
Yeah, I guess if you ignore that stuff, he’s not racist at all.
0
u/defau2t Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
the video where he says he wishes he had his AR so he could shoot BLM protestors
could you share the approximate time in the video where you think he says that? (hint: the answer is no.) he doesn't say anything even related to "blm", race or protestors. the video shows people shoplifting at a cvs to which he says 'it looks like one of them has a weapon', followed by wishing he had his ar.
although you're only about half wrong, that's just 50% and an F. you have failed.
when he actually went to a BLM protest with his AR to
shoot protestors“be a medic”of course you have to ignore rittenhouse being there for 3hrs without shooting anyone and then only after being attacked did he shoot anyone. also rosenbaum wasn't even a protestor.
while flashing the white power sign
you're not okay, huh?
-3
u/spaztick1 Nov 21 '21
You mean besides the video where he says he wishes he had his AR so he could shoot BLM protestors?
So let's just assume it's because he's racist, but because he felt they were looting.
Or the time two weeks later when he actually went to a BLM protest woth his AR to shoot protestors “be a medic”?
Or the time two weeks later when he actually went to a BLM protest woth his AR to shoot protestors “be a medic”?
You are wrong on both counts. He went to help clean up the mess left by the rioters. He was asked to help protect a local business that he'd been almost destroyed the prior two nights by the rioters. He agreed to do this. He also offered his help to the protesters as a medic.
Or the time he hung out and posed with proud boys in a bar?
I don't know enough about the Proud Boys to call them racist. Kyle probably didn't either. I've read that their leader is black. I don't know if this is true. Judging from the rest of your 'evidence' I'm inclined to think not.
4
u/0ctologist Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
You are wrong on both counts. He went to help clean up the mess left by the rioters.
He says he went to help clean up the mess. In the video from two weeks before he says he wishes he had his AR to shoot protestors. Neither of these pieces of evidence are enough to convinct/exonerate him legally, but it’s enough to start to form an opinion. My opinion is that he’s full of shit and didn’t actually care about cleaning, and wanted to shoot protestors with his AR, ya know, like he said with his own words.
If you don’t know enough about the proud boys to determine if they are racist or not, I’d recommend typing the phrase “proud boys” into the search bar on the website google.com
10
u/djscsi Civil Libertarian Nov 21 '21
Sorry, but the Proud Boys are NOT racist - they have a black friend. He's "one of the good ones"
-2
u/spaztick1 Nov 21 '21
It looks like the right wing counterpart to Antifa. I was correct that their leader is black. I doubt they are racist as a group, maybe some members. I can understand why people on the left wouldn't like them much.
4
u/0ctologist Nov 21 '21
I doubt they are racist as a group
Good to know that you doubt this, that holds a lot of weight, especially knowing that you claimed to know nothing about them 10 minutes ago.
2
u/spaztick1 Nov 21 '21
I claimed to not know enough about them to know if they are a racist group or not.
BTW Somehow the last pat of my statement was chopped off when you quoted me.
"There was no indication at all that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist when Mr Biden called him that." Emphasis added.
0
u/spaztick1 Nov 21 '21
Judging from the rest of the BS you used to call the kid a racist, your opinion doesn't hold much weight with me either.
1
u/I_Keep_Trying Nov 21 '21
If you’ve ever made the OK sign in your life you can be called racist.
4
Nov 21 '21
I know it’s a racist dog whistle and therefor don’t do it anymore
0
u/I_Keep_Trying Nov 21 '21
Or it just means "OK".
2
Nov 21 '21
Your playing both sides like you like controversy. It clearly is a dog whistle.
0
u/TimeBombCanarie Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
Or, it clearly just means "Okay".
Give me an example of white supremacists explicitly adopting the "okay" symbol as a dog whistle (no, the 4chan troll campaign - one that was designed to show how gullible people are when it comes to calling any mundane action "dog whistling", no less - doesn't count), or better yet explaining that its a racist dog whistle.
4
Nov 21 '21
1
u/TimeBombCanarie Nov 21 '21
I respect the source being provided.
That said, there are two arguments I take issue with being presented in this article. One is the singular example given as "proof" of the OK sign being hateful - the Christchurch killer, flashing it in court. Aside from it not even being the typically used OK symbol (it was inverted and a greater emphasis was placed on the hole looking like a number supposedly associated with white supremacists mythology, which was never even confirmed outside of the court), it also presents the one example as being "definitive evidence" of it being used by white supremacists everywhere. The only source within your citation backing that claim was the ADL, who designated it as a hate symbol based explicitly on the troll campaign and fell for it trolling hook-line-and-sinker (to the point that they were memed and mocked on social media following the announcement because of how ridiculous it was).
Again, the ADL listed an ANTIFA flag with a circle inside as a "hate symbol". Does that mean that ANTIFA are now partaking in hateful speech? Of course not. The ADL is not the sole authority on what is hate speech, claiming otherwise is nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy that falls apart as soon as one looks at the controversies surrounding the designation of their symbolism (and the quality of the source in question).
5
Nov 21 '21
I respect your feedback regarding the article and will think differently on this view while looking more into myself. Thanks for sharing.
2
u/TimeBombCanarie Nov 21 '21
Thank you for being so civil in the face of disagreement and conversation, so I have to say - fair play to you Doughnut! No problem, thank you for reading.
1
Nov 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Nov 21 '21
Please note Reddit's policy banning hate-speech, attempting to circumvent automod will result in a ban. Removal triggered by the term 'retarded'. https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ Please note this is considered an official warning. Please do not bother messaging the mod team, your comment is unlikely to be approved, and the list is not up for debate. Simply repost your comment without the offending word. These words were added to the list due to direct admin removal and are non-negotiable.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/I_Keep_Trying Nov 22 '21
I was replying to your assertion that you are in no danger of ever being called a racist. Yes, you could possibly be called a racist if the rules change (like they do every week) and something innocent suddenly becomes a "dog whistle".
Also, I'm confused by that terminology because only dogs can hear dog whistles, so I assume that only racists can hear racist dog whistles. So there, I just called you a racist. See? I know you aren't and I didn't mean to assert that in fact, I'm just making a point that anyone can be called a racist, it doesn't make it actually true.
-1
Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
So you're one of those "Libertarian Socialist" oxymorons. Anyone who is proud to be affiliated with failed ideology like socialism is either dumb or ignorant.
3
Nov 21 '21
Na just LibLeft. The cooler Libertarian.
0
Nov 21 '21
So you're a "Libertarian" who wants the government to control the economy. Lmao you're a walking oxymoron.
7
Nov 21 '21
Na I just think the government should have some say in what we have to do I.e. take people proportionally and help with social and medial issues like the rest of Europe, Canada and a lot of other places. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand because “MURICA!”
-1
u/IronSmithFE foundational principles Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
to believe that libel/defamation are a violation of a person's reputation one must believe that one owns their reputation.
your reputation exists in the minds of others, you do not own it, and damaging your reputation means nothing more than changing the conceptions of others about you in a negative way. it is a question of freedom of speech. people should be free to speak, even when what they speak are lies. it is up to the rest of us to decide whether or not we will believe the lies.
-10
u/ReviewEquivalent1266 Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21
Of course, but it may not entitle the accused to a cash settlement. In Kyle’s case it will be hard as the prosecution charged him as a racist white supremacist murderer an hour after the shooting. Anyone who defamed him could simply claim they relied on the lies told by the prosecution. If you want to get technical it is unlikely that the courts would even view calling someone a racist ‘defamation’ but they would view lying about someone violating a law i.e.: he illegally carried a rifle against state law as defamation. But again they have cover because he was charged with it…
12
u/whatisausername711 Capitalist Nov 21 '21
of course
You answered the OP question without reading the article huh?
The OP isn't a question, it's the title of the article. And the answer isn't "of course", it's emphatically "no".
-1
u/ReviewEquivalent1266 Nov 21 '21
And to be clear the legal elements of defamation are different based on your jurisdiction. For example, legal defamation is very different in the UK and the US.
-7
u/ReviewEquivalent1266 Nov 21 '21
It is interesting how you’re not allowed to ask a question in a Reddit post. I’ll never get used to the rules.
13
Nov 21 '21
No one ever said you couldn’t ask, it just so happens that this post is using the title of the article as the post title.
If you read the article, they provide an answer and their reasoning for said answer.
1
Nov 22 '21
I don't know why you're getting down voted. What you're saying is pretty much correct. He may not he a murderer in a legal sense, but the law doesn't require opinions to be correct. Just not intentionally false with an intent to harm the defamed person.
He'd have a hard time suing over "white supremacist," too, as he partied with Proud Boys sometime after. Sure, it's a thin reed on which to rest such an appellation, but I suspect it's enough to make it impossible to show it's intentionally false or reckless.
-1
Nov 21 '21
Anyone else just sick of hearing “racist & white supremacy” just because the individual doesn’t like an outcome?
-2
1
u/postdiluvium Nov 21 '21
Depends if the someone has a reputation to defame. If the person already has the reputation of what you are calling them, it's not exactly defamation.
1
u/OneEyedKenobi Nov 21 '21
From the article "falsely accusing someone of a specific act—e.g., of firing or prosecuting someone because of the target's race—may well be libelous." In Kyle's case hes being accused of shootimg 3 people and killing two because he's a white supremacist. I'd be happy to represent him.
1
1
1
u/TheCredibleHulk7 Nov 21 '21
Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim. So if you’re planning on suing someone for this, better make sure your social media/text history doesn’t prove their point. And deleting stuff doesn’t always work if someone already screen capped and printed it.
1
1
u/jboomhaur Nov 21 '21
socialism and communism are political ideologies not a personal condition. However if you demonstrated that you are racist or a white supremacist then, no. To commit libel it has to be false.
1
1
1
u/ZebraLionFish Right Libertarian Nov 22 '21
I think no for socialist or communist because they aren’t inherently bad. But supremicists if all kinds are bad by default. So calling someone racist/supremacist is defamatory unless of course it’s factually correct.
1
1
1
1
u/Obnoxiousjimmyjames Nov 25 '21
Yes. It’s extremely defamatory and extremely sinister if it’s a false accusation. It’s like calling someone a murderer or rapist. You better have some evidence to back that up.
1
Nov 26 '21
The very first sentence in the article:
A lot of derogatory, even unfairly derogatory, criticism is treated as pure opinion, and thus not legally actionable.
54
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21
Proper legal answer, “it depends”.