#this man is literally guilty of libel | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arcticdementor · 5 years

Link

Douthat has a good piece this morning about how there are times when conspiracy theorists are actually closer to the truth than their critics.

…

In early 2002, shortly after the Boston trial of Father Geoghan blew open the Catholic sex scandal nationwide, I received a tip from a priest that Cardinal Ted McCarrick of DC had a history of sexually abusing seminarians. The priest said a group of prominent lay Catholics who knew this about him flew to Rome at their own expense, trying to prevent McCarrick from being named as Washington archbishop, which would have made him a cardinal. They met with an unnamed Vatican official to tell them what they knew about McCarrick, but it made no difference. McCarrick got his red hat.

The priest gave me the names of two men who had been on that trip, both of them well-known in their professions. I called the first one, who said yes, he had been on that trip, but didn’t want to talk about it. The second one told me that “if that were true, I wouldn’t tell you about it for the same reason Noah’s sons covered their father in his drunkenness.” Translation: yes, it’s true, but I’m not going to talk about it to protect the Church.

I didn’t know what to do next. But then I was called into my editor’s office. He wanted to know what I was working on (I hadn’t told anybody, because I hadn’t made any progress on the story). He told me that he had received a phone call from a very well known public conservative (I’m not going to name him here) who identified himself as a friend of Cardinal McCarrick, and said that the cardinal was aware that Rod Dreher was going to report a story that was true, but not criminal, and that would be very embarrassing to the cardinal. The caller asked my editor to kill the story.

I was stunned. How did McCarrick find out? I told my editor what I was working on, and he simply asked me to keep him informed. Back at my desk, I called the priest who tipped me off. “McCarrick knows,” I said. I asked him how that was possible. I had told no one else. I’m quite sure that neither of the two potential sources I called tipped him off, because it would not have been in their interest. So how did he know?

The priest was shocked. “The only person I told,” he said, “was my spiritual director, Father Benedict Groeschel.”

…

This was a useful lesson to learn, both as a journalist and, well, as a life lesson in how the world works. It happened over and over and over again as I wrote about the scandal. A progressive Catholic journalist and I once shared war stories about covering the scandal, and agreed that the ideological convictions of both the Catholic Right and the Catholic Left prevented people from identifying malefactors who happened to share their ideology. Beyond that, most Catholics simply could not grasp the idea that the institutional Church was in fact honeycombed with networks of perverts. I interviewed a seminarian who told me that his own parents considered him to be a liar when he told them about the homosexual decadence at his former seminary. They found it easier to believe that their son was a lying fantasist than to believe that his seminary was a gay whorehouse.

…

I hardly need to go into detail here about what we discovered over the ensuing years about the networked corruption in the Church. For me, one of the great lessons is that in any institution, corrupt men will take advantage of it, especially if they can work beneath a canopy of presumed innocence. It can happen in a police force. It can happen in the military. This is not just a church thing, not by any means.

Some conspiratorial types like to believe that the media knew all about McCarrick, but refused to report it. That’s not really true. Yes, the stories about McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians were known to some other journalists, but nobody could nail them down. There’s a good reason we have libel laws, and professional journalistic ethics. It’s a very big deal to claim that a man — especially a cardinal — is sexually abusing others. Strong claims like that — claims that could destroy a man’s life — require strong evidence. Off-the-record stories, and the absence of documentation, are not enough. It could have been the case that McCarrick was the target of a conspiracy of liars determined to take him down. Not only would it be morally wrong to accuse McCarrick publicly on the basis of what amounts to hearsay, but any individual or publication that did so could be sued for libel, and could conceivably be destroyed. The only way McCarrick was ever going to be outed is through court documents, and through on the record interviews with victims and others in a position to know what he did. I was dying to tell the truth about McCarrick, but I could not do so without more solid information.

But what to make of this story that follows?

…

The Times had this story six years earlier, but didn’t publish it. Why not? There are people who assume that the media would never, ever sit on a story that could make the Catholic Church look bad. I am convinced that’s exactly what the Times did in 2012, even though it had hard evidence that McCarrick was guilty. In truth, I have no idea why the Times suppressed the story its own freelancer had, but I’m telling you, do not ever assume that the ideological orientation of a media outlet can reliably predict what they’re willing to report, and refuse to report. Loyalties are complex.

…

These days, it is impossible to find a clear line between realism and cynicism, between a valid critical disposition and sheer paranoia. If we ever do get the true, reasonably complete story behind McCarrick’s rise, it will likely expose the nexus of power, sex, and money in the Catholic hierarchy, with unpredictable results. Similarly, if we ever get the true, reasonably complete story of who Jeffrey Epstein was and how he did what he did, we are likely going to see the nexus of power, sex, and money among the international elites, with unpredictable results.

The world is not ordered as we wish it were. It’s not even disordered as we wish it were. I’m thinking this morning of something a faithful Catholic layman told me in the spring of 2002, about the abuse scandal. He was a close friend of Cardinal Bernard Law, and active in the Archdiocese of Boston. This man — a very intelligent, morally upright gentleman — had direct knowledge of widespread homosexual corruption in the seminary at the time. He told me that he informed his dear friend the cardinal about all of it … and that the cardinal had done nothing. I asked the man how he reconciled his love and respect for the cardinal with the fact that Law had allowed this kind of corruption to flourish unaddressed.

The man sat across from me, unable to speak. The cognitive dissonance left him paralyzed. He could not accept that the world was ordered in such a way that his dear friend the cardinal could be guilty of such gross negligence. I used to be pretty naive, the kind of person who believed that good men (like my interlocutor) almost always wanted to know the truth, and to fight for justice. What I couldn’t have truly grasped until that extraordinary conversation was how the mind will protect itself from having to face something intolerable. That man was not asked to believe a conspiracy theory; he was asked to put two and two together — facts that he did not dispute. But he couldn’t bring himself to do it. He literally could not summon the will to face the terrible truth about his friend the cardinal, and the truth about the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

What’s so frightening to me today, thinking about that, is how every one of us is susceptible to that same paralysis.

#rod dreher #the american conservative #read the whole thing

6 notes · View notes

humanscandrivestick · 6 years

Text

E.Q.--Concordia

Concordia is the Latin word for "harmony," literally "with (one) heart." It may refer to: Concordia (mythology), the Roman goddess of harmony.

~~~

Bass leaned his head back into Treble's chest, one earbud in his left ear while Treble had the right one. They were on another round of their christmas gifts, their yearly song exchange as they watched the snow from their apartment window. This year, Balance had taken Fade out on a "girly" event night with a few of the other girls in the network. Bass wondered why Moebius had gotten an invite for it, though Treble insisted it was because she was female. Bass still felt he was male, because, as it out it, "that's the kinda boy I like, if you weren't in the picture", which only made Treble smirk sheepishly.

It was a quiet Christmas for them, able to just snuggle down and be with each other. There were times Treble marveled at the fact that unlike most couples, they never were bored with each other. The french redhead pointed out that it was because they were merely one person occupying 2 locations in space, a rather midnight nirvana kinda observation he was wont to have when the 3 of them were just chilling and smoking and drinking together.

Quentin had opted also to stay behind that Christmas Eve, shocked that Treble didn't object, and left to go grab something--or rather lots of somethings--to drink and eat. There weren't a lot of places open late, but when he got back, both men were still watching the snow in the christmas lit living room.

"Mind if I turn on a lamp?" he asked as he set the drink and snack fixings on the coffee table.

Bass lazily waved at him as he stretched a little. Treble gave him a nod, but his gaze was out the window. He certainly did like watching the snow almost as much as Bass liked watching the rain.

With their phones connecting to the internet for recipes, the boys made a number of sweet cocktails--Quentin's second guilty pleasure--and enjoyed it with sliced meats, cheeses and crackers--Bass and Quentin's first guilty pleasures. They brought out some instruments, though Bass was taking a vacation from the synths. It's the holidays and sometimes a man should take a break when he's done with hard work.

While Treble nursed what Bass called a Cinderella (a fruit juice non-alcoholic), Quentin leaned back and licked his fingers. "Treb?"

"Yes?" he asked, his deep blue eyes curiously but calmly flicking over.

"You're...sure it's ok I celebrate Christmas with you and Bass...?"

He gave a short derisive snort. "Like I was going to let you have him for the holiday."

Bass gave him a sheepish but sharp look. "Treeeeeeb."

"No no. I mean...like it's ok for me to be with you guys...." He was looking into his drink, a seabreeze. "I know you guys...always do something on your holiday."

Treble could hear the barest edges of a familiar loneliness. The same Bass had back in the Corps when he was away for the holiday. He and Bass truly were cut from the same cloth, even if they were sewn up differently.

"We exchange music. It's not as if it's a ceremony." He said it with a square frankness that Quentin wasn't sure how to handle, but Bass, reading his partner like a painting, gave Quentin a warm squeeze on the knee.

"He's tryin' to say he knew you'd be lonely and that we didn't want you to be." "I didn't say that," Treble said curtly, though it was curt enough to be obviously true.

"I know. S'why I had to say it. Out loud." He leaned into Quentin's legs, using his knees and thighs as an armrest. "But...I didn't want you to be lonely neither. I've spent enough christmases alone to know that's no bueno, bro."

The redhead's eyes were still a little uncertain. He wasn't the type to try to step on people, and for that Bass--and deep down Treble--understood.

"Dude, you're here now and you got nowhere to go. I wouldn't letcha be by yourself." As Treble sipped his drink and lazily strummed his guitar, Bass looked up at Quentin. "Tell ya what. I'll tell you all the crazy shit that used to happen back when Treb and I were in the Corps, all the crazy christmas stories."

Treble looked up quizzically. "Oh I see. 'scary ghost stories and tales of old glories of christmases long, long ago'?"

"Pretty harsh to hear you call 'im ghost stories," Bass said, grinning.

"I suppose those are for Halloween then."

"He'd never believe the real ones."

Quentin watched and listened to their banter and smiled. It was like being with friends, though he'd usually had few in his early life.

Cry over this now, Quent, and they'd never let you hear the end of it, he thought ruefully, though he was smiling.

Treble leaned back. "Wouldn't be the same without all the music...."

If Bass were a dog, his ears would be perked. "What, you sayin' a lil playlist to go with the story telling?"

"I don't know if we even have the old stuff....we'd have to play by ear."

"You say that like we couldn't."

"With your memory."

"And yours too."

"Sure," Quentin said, and cocked his head. "I wanna hear 14 years worth of love songs."

Neither of them seemed to notice, but Quentin saw the same smile cross both their faces. Other people would probably say that they were entirely different, with Bass' stretching eagerly over his mouth, and the corners of Treble's mouth barely moving, but the spark in their eyes as they went to collect instruments and other electronics was exactly the same.

It was a long play that both men played. Treble was shocked that Bass still had the original files stored away on a small keychain thumb-drive card. They weren't of the best quality, but between the both of them, they made a more robust sound, filling in and remixing over the original files with live instruments. Occasionally, Bass would drop a break beat, or Treble would extend a refrain as they recounted every one of those 14 years, never in order, though their first christmas was told first. Seeing Bass nostalgically relive those moments of uncertainty, and Treble recount his efforts to comfort him. The year they wrote music for the man that sent Treble a guitar for his birthday. That lonely Christmas Eve when Treble took that fighter jet cross country to make it back in time for christmas. Each story was further affirmation to Quentin what they both had between each other.

It ached a little, but it felt more good than bittersweet. He had never felt such a strong love for anyone as he did for Bass. The thoughts he could live in a world without him was as incomprehensible as gravity theory.

In a way...he was glad he defected.

Treble was playing a few of their songs together on the guitar, as Bass cozied up on Quentin's lap on the couch. The redhead was leaned against his arm, though not intimately. The 3 of them sat in a warm silence.

"Thank you," Quentin said softly. Treble turned his head slightly to look at him. "Its prolly been one of the best holidays I've ever had. Like ever."

"He...reminds me a lot of you. You both have this sort of way you express emotion. You don't like to impose, but you don't sugar coat." Treble was never good at words but he senses Quentin needs them more than implication. "And you both can get so unbearably lonely its obvious you go out of your way to not be...."

"Am I that obvious?”

"Sometimes. Though I'd assume you wouldn't have tracked us down post Sound Tower to find us if you didn't get so lonely."

"Don't talk like that or I'll libel to start cryin'."

"You're not that puss."

"Well, thank you for the compliment. I think."

Quentin leaned his head on Treble's shoulder, and the raven-haired man made a playful show of moving it off with a comical look of disgust. "Don't think I want to bump uglies with you, baguette."

"I know," chucked Quentin. "Bass-sexual is what you are."

"I prefer to think monogamous."

"Picky," corrected Bass, his eyes shut.

Treble merely rolled his eyes, but there was an amused glint to it.

They watched the snow come down through the window. And Quentin spoke up again, contented. "This is nice."

At the same time, both men said, "I was going to say the same thing."

#E.Q.#E.Q. Fridays #Side A #Treble #Bass #Quentin #christmas

7 notes · View notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

DECODING THE DRACONIAN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEFAMATION

Abstract –

The research paper has been attempted to address basic questions about the types of defamation, libel and slander, different forms of defamation; criminal and civil, and examined the position of cases falling under this.

Mainly the work has been done with three objectives of the research paper;

To examine the essentials constituents and Defences of defamation.

To examine, Right to freedom of speech as one’s right and duty towards others.

To examine the different conditions and grounds, where the relationship between parties becomes the barrier of defamation.

The research paper has examined the value of the right to reputation and how, with the growing importance of human rights and freedom of speech, the balance is gradually getting more evened out between the two. It is to be kept in mind that the citation has been mentioned according to the guidelines of NTCC.

INTRODUCTION

Defamation is an act of communicating false statement to malign or lower down or to form a bad opinion of someone, which ultimately injures someone’s reputation.

It is a wrong done by a person to another by words, written or spoken, sign, or other visible representations; though our constitution provides the ‘Right to freedom of speech’, on the other hand, it protects the “Dignity and reputation” of one.

Mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which none would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

The law has imposed a general duty on all person to refrain from making false, defamatory statements of fact about others

According to Dr. Winfield, defamation can be defined as: “the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society, generally or, which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.”

Examples: A posted a comment on B’s blog saying that the blog’s author had been in prison for 2 years. It certainly sounds like a defamatory statement if it is false.

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE VIA INTERNET ARE ALSO ACTIONABLE

Quoting the current case which happened in May 20, “boys locker room” in which boys were body-shaming girls and even they mentioned about rape and performing it on an Instagram group named: BOYS LOCKER ROOM, although it was wrong, this never allowed others to bring their past event and portray on social media without any proof; many did that and started posting stories, how they were body-shamed, started tagging the boys who do such things with the girls, but no one stood up and checked the reality of the facts, because of ‘few fake facts’ an innocent boy named, Manav Singh, 17 yrs. young student of Heritage School, Gurugram committed suicide.

Although social media is a great platform for generating awareness, spreading information, it does never permit someone to say such wrong words about someone that ultimately affects one’s mental health and stress forces them to take extreme action which will not only affect them but the people around them and the ‘society’ too.

It is therefore, necessary to examine the freedom of speech, limitation under certain such laws they came into existence.

FORMS

Defamation is actionable both under civil law and a criminal charge under section 499 and 500 of IPC.

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Section 499 of IPC: “whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by sign or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person”.

It’s a bailable, non-cognizable, and compoundable offense, which means no police can register a case and start an investigation without the court’s permission, and in a criminal case intended to defame is necessary.

Punishment for the defamation under the criminal charges has been mentioned u/s 500 of IPC.

Section 500 of IPC: “whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or both”.

Case: Mr. M J Akbar filed criminal defamation case against a woman journalist, who accused him of sexual harassment.

In which, M J Akbar filed the case through his advocates Karanjawala and co. against journalist Priya Ramani, who along with 10 other women, had accused him of sexual harassment.

CIVIL DEFAMATION

In civil matters of defamation, it need not necessarily follows as criminal offense.

Civil defamation generally covered under the Law of Torts, which is actionable and attracts punishment in the form of damages.

Under civil charges defendant never goes to jail, if found guilty, matters are resolved by awarding liquidated damages, where in a civil suit, intention to defame is not necessary.

Case: In the matter of D.P. Choudhury v. Manjulata, the plaintiff-respondent, Manjulata about 17 years of age, belonged to a distinguished educated family of Jodhpur. She was a student of B.A. There was the publication of a news item in a local daily, Dainik Navjyoti, dated 18.12.77, that the last night 11 p.m. Manjulata had run away with a boy named Kamlesh after she went out of her house on the pretext of attending night classes in her college. The news item was untrue and was negligently published. It was held that all defamatory words are actionable per se and in such a case general damages will be presumed.

TYPES

There are two types of defamation: libel and slander

LIBEL

It is a representation made in a permanent form that will harm the reputation of someone, writing, movie, pictures, etc. are such examples.

For e.g., X printed some advertisement saying Y is bankrupt, whereas in fact Y was not so. Thus, such representation is a specific form.

SLANDER

If the statement is made by oral words or gestures, then the defamation falls under slander.

For e.g., A questions the chastity of B in an interview, such actions of A are slanderous.

METHODOLOGY

In accordance with the objectives of the current study, the doctrinal method of research has been adopted. The doctrinal method has been used to examine various cases and incidents regarding the defamation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the essentials constituents and Defences of defamation;

To examine, Right to freedom of speech as one’s right and duty towards others;

To examine the different conditions and grounds, where the relationship between parties becomes the barrier of defamation.

ESSENTIALS

To establish defamation, a plaintiff normally must prove the following:

STATEMENT OF FACT

Is whether the defendant made a statement of fact or a statement of opinion?

A statement of fact is a statement that can be proved as being true or false with some standard objective.

A statement or expression of opinion is a statement that a person believes to be true but it cannot be measured against an objective standard and is usually not actionable.

g., X says that I think Y is a criminal. It’s not a defamatory statement as it is X’s opinion about the Y.

PUBLICATION REQUIRED

Publication in the case of defamation means that the defamatory statements are communicated to a third person other than the defamed party (third party).

Anyone who publishes or repeats defamatory statements is liable, even if publisher reveals the source of the statement. Both are jointly and severally liable for action.

g., if A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 10 crore. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company.

In Mahender Ram Vs. Hiranandani Prasad – In this case the defendant wrote a letter to defaming the plaintiff in Urdu script. But plaintiff did not know Urdu. Therefore, he made a third person to read it. It was held that if the defendant was unaware of the fact that the plaintiff was not knowing Urdu while writing the letter, and it would necessitate reading of the letter by a third person, then he exempted for his liability.

Any means of publication is acceptable, the necessary element is that facts need to be defamatory and need to be communicated to a person more than the defamed party[1].

DEFAMATORY AND FALSE STATEMENT

The statement needs to be defamatory in nature, which means communication of such words needs to be there which will ultimately harm the reputation of the person

Statement needs to be false, true facts are not considered under defamation.

Each publication of defamatory statements will be considered as individual publication and the person will be liable according to it, and if the same person publishes the same statement again then he’ll be liable for the second communication of the same material.

g., A publishes about B, that he was sent to jail for fraud and rape, but factually B was charged for fraud. Such statement will cover under defamation as false facts are been examined.

P. Chaudhary vs. Kumari Manjulata – In this case, the defendant, a local newspaper publisher, published a statement that the plaintiff, a 17-year girl, ran away with her boyfriend. But literally, she went to attend her evening classes. In this case the court held that the defendant is liable for defaming the plaintiff and awarded some nominal amount to her.[2]

STATEMENT MUST REFER TO THE PLAINTIFF

Defamatory statement needs to be specifically for the plaintiff. It need not be of generalized nature like statements made for doctors, lawyers, teachers etc.

Newstead vs. London Express Newspapers LTD – The defendants published a defamatory article stating that Harold Newstead, a man who belongs to Camber well, had been convicted of bigamy. The story was actually true. But the action for libel is brought by another same-named person Harold Newstead, who was also a barber. As the words were considered to be understood as referring to the plaintiff, the defendants were liable. [3]

Harsh Mendiratta vs. Maharaj Singh – In this case the Delhi high court states that the suit of defamation is only maintainable by the person who was defamed, and not by his family or his friends.[4]

STATEMENT MUST CAUSE SERIOUS HARM: EITHER ON REPUTATION OR FINANCIAL LOSS

g., The plaintiff lost his job because of the statement made.

DEFENCE

The following are the Defences taken in an action for defamation: –

JUSTIFICATION OF TRUTH

The truth is the most important defence or justification for defamation.

The foremost point of the defamation was ‘false’; therefore, true statement won’t fall under defamation.

This is because only false statements against a person constitute defamation.

Hence, if the person making the statements proves them to be true, he can escape the charge.

Alexander vs. North Eastern Railway – In this case, the plaintiff was travelling in a train without ticket, had been sentenced to a fine of 1 pound or 14 days’ jail as an alternative. The defendants published the notice that the plaintiff was charged the fine of 1 pound or 3 weeks’ imprisonment as an alternative. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. It was held that the statement was substantially true, so defendants are not liable.

FAIR AND BONAFIDE COMMENT

A fair bonafide comment on a matter of public interest is a Defence in an action for defamation.

Essentials of a fair comment are:

That a comment or criticism need not a statement of fact.

The comment is on a matter of public interest.

The comment is fair, bonafide and honest made in good faith.

g., Making statements against maladministration by a government’s cabinet minister may not amount to defamation.

PRIVILEGED STATEMENT

As the word itself suggest; giving special status to some, with limitation (special occasions, particular time and place)

Special occasions when the law recognizes that the right of free speech outweighs the plaintiff right to defamation and a defamatory statement made on such occasion is not actionable. E.g., A member of parliament has an absolute privilege for any statement he makes in parliament.

The constitution grants complete immunity from prosecution for defamation for such statements.

Such privileges sometimes exist in judicial proceedings as well.

APOLOGY

In the case the person who makes the defamatory statements issues an apology, he can escape from liability.

For the Defence, the person suffering the tort of defamation must accept the apology and pardon him.

There is a special case of INNUENDO in defamation which means, when the statement was prima facie innocent but because of some secondary meaning, it may be considered to be defamatory.

For this secondary instance plaintiff must prove the secondary meaning i.e. innuendo which makes the statement defamatory.

For example: Z makes a statement that X is an honest man and he never stole my watch. Now this statement is at first instance may be innocent, but it can be defamatory if the person to whom it was made, interprets from this that X is a dishonest man having stolen the watch.

In other words, innuendo is a sarcastic comment or carrying dwell meaning made on a person.

TYPES OF DAMAGES AVAILABLE IF ONE HAS BEEN DEFAMED Whether you’ve experienced defamation as such or pre quoted, it’s necessary to grasp what damages are accessible to you.

Damages are an umbrella term for any kind of monetary compensation awarded to a victim during a civil case. Most defamation plaintiffs request to payment of compensatory damages within the form of special damages and general damages and punitive damages if they’re out there. It may be a token amount also’

SPECIAL DAMAGES

Special damages are comparatively easy and are mentioned as liquidated damages. As one would possibly imagine, an award of special damages is supposed to reimburse a victim for actual damages. Actual damages would possibly include loss measurable or assessable in cash values, loss of business, and expenses incurred in legal action against the defamation.

Special damages should be well-documented. the great news is that this could be accomplished with proof that may be simple to get like bank statements, tax returns, and proof of expenses within the variety of invoices and receipts. Plaintiffs has to supply testimony to claim their claims for restitution.

One may require the assistance of associate witness to assist prove damages. In defamation cases, knowledgeable supply specialised information in rhetorical accounting, business, promotion, or IT knowledgeable witnesses will enlighten the court the precise nature of the defamation and its impact on the victim. they’ll conjointly give complicated monetary analysis to calculate your economic damages. The unbiased, skilled opinion of associate witness will go an extended approach toward influencing a jury’s call to award damages.

GENERAL DAMAGES

General damages may be more durable to quantify during a defamation case. they’re conjointly brought up as non-economic damages. indemnity compensate plaintiffs for emotional distress and reputational hurt caused by the defamation. Proving emotional distress may be a troublesome task during a defamation cause. whereas it’s intuitive that libellous statements showing emotion have an effect on a victim, proving this is often a challenge. witnesses will facilitate prove emotional distress, and their testimony will generally be weighted additional heavily than the victim’s testimony.

If one has full-fledged emotional distress as a result of defamation, keep track of however it’s compacted his lifestyle together with disruptions routine like sleeping habits, appetite, and participation in social activities.

Reputational damages are a typical consequence of defamation. A plaintiff’s testimony alone is also low to get a bequest for reputational damages. the most effective thanks to prove hurt to one’s name is to supply third-party testimony or objective proof of harm to the reputation.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

The objectives of damages are not to compensate one because the complainant for the defendant’s actions to defame others. Courts could award damages to penalize and deter the defendant’s actus reus. The punishments in such cases are not exemplary.

DEFAMATION CLAIMS THAT SEMICONDUCTOR DIODE TO JUDGMENTS

To explore what it takes to prove damages, let’s discuss a couple of defamation cases involving on-line content that yielded judgments for plaintiffs. detain mind that damages analysis is particular to every case and once liability has been established, there are many ways to prove damages and damages awards will vary wide betting on the facts of the case.

Above, the boy’s room case was conjointly mentioned keeping the facts in mind concerning the defamation on-line.

DEFAMATORY GOOGLE REVIEWS

In Fireworks Restoration Co., LLC v. Hosto, the complainant with success brought a defamation claim against a former business partner WHO announce 3 pretend Google reviews regarding the business once their relationship sour. The jury awarded the complainant $150,000 in damages that was upheld as an exemplary damage.

The court noted that the testimony of third-parties on the plaintiff’s diminished name and also the proof bestowed of the plaintiff’s monetary losses once the negative reviews were announced was enough to prove reputational injury. Fireworks Restoration Co., LLC v. Hosto, 371 southwest 3d eighty-three – Mo: Court of Appeals, Japanese Dist., 2012.

DEFAMATORY WEBSITES

In Bouveng v. Nyg Capital LLC, the complainant was awarded $1.5 million in damages for her defamation claim against her former leader that was upheld on attractiveness.

In this case, the complainant didn’t request economic damages, however the judicature based mostly its call to uphold the decision on the injury the complainant suffered to her name. The defendants engaged in an in-depth on-line campaign to slander the complainant for nearly a year by posting libellous articles on a web magazine they closely-held. The articles defendant the complainant of being a sex slave, criminal, felon, partaking in fraud, and enclosed various different libellous statements the judicature delineate as “egregious.” The defendants conjointly used SEO techniques to govern the plaintiff’s search results that resulted within the statements reaching many thousands of individuals.

The court found that the plaintiff’s name had been grievously broken. In assessing the reputational injury suffered by the complainant, the court noted proof of the intensive reach of the libellous statements, their prominence within the plaintiff’s Google search results and their probability to hurt the plaintiff’s name within the future.

DEFAMATORY FACEBOOK POSTS

In Laugh land v. Beckett, the complainant was awarded $15,000 normally damages and $10,000 in punitive damages once the defendant created a pretend Facebook account impersonating him. The court found that the defendant was motivated by a need to win romantic favour with the plaintiff’s former girlfriend.

The account announces various statements regarding the complainant that the court found libellous like occupation himself chiseller, a bank manipulator, and a foul father. The pretend account created active makes an attempt to speak with different people on Facebook regarding the complainant and had six friends. The judicature found that the pretend Facebook account had broken the plaintiff’s name.

The court conjointly found that the defendant’s actions were intentional and malicious that supported a penitentiary injury award to penalise him and deter others from similar conduct.

There are clearly more examples of cases in which plaintiffs were awarded damages for defamation, however the foremost necessary factor to recollect is that proving damages related to defamation is not easy but troublesome however not impossible.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEFAMATION

“Liberty is not a personal affair but a social contract”

Common law has provided protection to reputation through the law of defamation. It’s been recognized for a protracted life with that protection of reputation that will conflict with freedom of expression. This is often the most reason why the connection ‘between the protected interest in reputation and also the competing interest in freedom of expression’ has begun to vary. Freedom of expression is not any longer ‘to be thought to be a residual personal right, however is interpreted as a positive right reinforced by the general public interest. Most notable case of ‘Reynolds v Times Newspapers’ explains freedom of expression in terms of the general public interest ‘in receiving and imparting data within the context of a democratic society’.

REYNOLDS V TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD [2001] 2 AC 127

Publication of defamatory political information not subject to general qualified privilege

Facts

The plaintiff was a former Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland. He began proceedings against a British newspaper publisher in relation to an article which alleged that he had dishonestly mislead parliamentary and cabinet colleagues whilst in office. The defendants pleaded the Defence of qualified privilege at common law. The plaintiff was successful at trial.[5]

Issue

The Court of Appeal held that the publication was not covered by qualified privilege. In the House of Lords, the defendants argued that the common law should recognize a generic qualified privilege covering the publication of political matters affecting UK citizens, except those proven to have been motivated by malice.

Held

The House of Lords declined to acknowledge such a class of general qualified privilege for political data per se a privilege would fail to provide adequate protection for reputation. it absolutely was not inappropriate to differentiate political data from different matters of great public concern. The established common law approach to misstatement of fact remains sound. Below the present common law rules, qualified privilege might apply to political data wherever there had been an obligation to publish the material to the intended recipient and that they had an interest in receiving it. the flexibility of the present common law permits courts to contemplate individual cases and provides acceptable weight to competitive factors together with the importance of freedom of expression by the media as a “watchdog” on matters of public interest. still, where the data is within the political domain, the court ought to be slow to conclude that publication isn’t within the public interest. In Sir Joshua Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] a pair of AC 127, a lot of stress was placed on protection of name as a matter of public interest that currently permits the interest in reputation to compete on a wider ground with freedom of expression. Lord Nicholls stated: ‘reputation is an integral and necessary a part of the dignity of the individual. It additionally forms the basis of the many selections in an exceedingly democratic society that’s elementary to its well-being.

Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged forever, especially if particularly no chance to vindicate one’s reputation. when this happens, society as well as the individual is that the loser. The protection of reputation is conducive to the general public good. it’s in the public interest that the reputation of public figures shouldn’t be debased incorrectly. in the political field, in order to make a wise choice, the electorate must be able to identify the great as well as the bad. consistently with these issues, human rights conventions acknowledge that freedom of expression isn’t an absolute right. Its exercise is also subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in an exceedingly democratic society for the protection of the reputations of others.’ Therefore, it may be aforementioned that, one has the liberty to talk and to speak their views however, that also comes with the limitation, and people limitations are set for the general public interest. Even if the statement is denigrator regarding the actual person however, if it’s in favour of public interest it won’t be coated below defamation. There are more Defences of defamation with really offer one to perform their right to talk truth against others and on the opposite had the necessities of defamation offer one the proper to safeguard their name.

Therefore, it can be easily said that, “RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS THE RIGHT OF ONE’S AND AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO OTHER”.

CONDITIONS AND GROUNDS, WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS THE BARRIER FOR DEFAMATION

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

In the eye of law, husband and wife are one person and the communication of a defamatory matter from the husband to the wife or vice versa is no publication. In TJ. Ponnen v. M.C. Verghese, the question which had arisen was whether a letter from the husband to the wife containing defamatory matter concerning the father-in-law (wife’s father) could be proved in an action by the father-in-law against the son-in-law. In that case, one T.J. Ponnen wrote no. of letters to his wife, rathi, containing some defamatory imputations concerning Rathi’s father, M.C. Verghese, Rathi passed on those letters to her father. The father-in-law launched a prosecution against his son-in-law complaining about the defamatory matter contained in those letters. Ponnen contended that the letters addressed by him to his wife are not, except with his consent, admissible in evidence by virtue of section 122, Indian Evidence Act, and since the wife is not permitted to disclose those letters, no offense of defamation could be made out.[6] It may be relevant here to quote section 122, Indian evidence act, which reads as follows:

“No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during the marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consent, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”.

The Kerala high court held that the letters meant for the wife could not be proved in the court either by her or through any relation of her to the prejudice of her husband because such communication is precluded by law to be disclosed and what cannot be or is not proved in a court has to be assumed as non-existent in the eye of law. Ponnen was, therefore, held not liable.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Kerala high court, it was held –

That even though in view of section 122, Indian Evidence Act, the complainant cannot seek to support his case upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, but if the communication between the husband and wife have fallen to his hands, the same can be proved in any other way. According to Shah, J:

“The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why an inquiry into the complaint should, or the preliminary contentions raised, b prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an inquiry at this stage”.

Communication of a matter defamatory of one spouse to the other is sufficient publication. In Theaker v. Richardson, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff making false allegations of her being a prostitute and a brothel-keeper. The letter was sent under the circumstances that the plaintiff’s husband in all probability would have read the same. The plaintiff’s husband opened and read it. The defendant was held liable.

CONCLUSION

From the above mentioned three objectives, namely:

To examine the essentials constituents and Defences of defamation.

To examine, Right to freedom of speech as one’s right and duty towards others.

To examine the different conditions and grounds, where the relationship between parties becomes the barrier of defamation.

Conclusion what can be made, freedom of speech comes with the limitation and while proving the right to one; it also creates in them the duty towards others; duty to work in accordance with the public interest. Though defamation gives one’s the right to protect their good name, but at the same time it allows the others also to portray the truth in front of the public.

“Liberty is not a personal affair but a social contract”

Therefore, while highlighting point of research paper will ultimately revolve around public interest. Even essentials, Defences, and Exceptions of defamation revolves around same objective.

REFERENCES

RK Bangia (book)

Principle of Tort Law (book)

https://www.lawteacher.net

https://ift.tt/2ACmYJr

https://lawrato.com

net

https://inforrm.org

https://www.minclaw.com

https://ift.tt/2hJjhqE

[1] https://ift.tt/2AY8rbg.

[2] https://www.minclaw.com.

[3] https://inforrm.org.

[4] https://ift.tt/2AY8rbg.

[5] https://ift.tt/2BQGDG9.

[6] R.K. Bangia

Authored By:

RAKSHITA BHARGAVA

Student of Law, Amity Law School, Noida, Amity University Uttar Pradesh

Disclaimer: This article has been published in Legal Desire International Journal on Law, ISSN 2347-3525 , Issue 22, Vol 7

The post DECODING THE DRACONIAN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEFAMATION appeared first on Legal Desire.

DECODING THE DRACONIAN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEFAMATION published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years

Text

Elon Musk Paid A Private Investigator $50,000 To Dig Up Dirt On A British Cave Rescuer

Elon Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to search for compromising information on a British cave explorer that he called “a pedo guy” on Twitter last year after the man criticized the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s involvement in the highly publicized rescue of a boys soccer team from a network of Thailand caves.

On Monday, a federal court in California posted a slew of documents in the ongoing defamation lawsuit between the British caver, Vernon Unsworth, and Musk, revealing that the billionaire hoped to obtain compromising information that suggested Unsworth was a pedophile. In a court filing, Musk asked a judge to throw out the case by arguing that his July 2018 tweet calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” was not meant to be taken factually.

“I did not intend to convey any facts or imply that Mr. Unsworth had engaged in acts of pedophilia,” Musk said in a court filing. “Pedo guy was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up. It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of pedophilia.”

Monday’s events are the latest development in a legal headache for Musk that began as a Twitter insult and has now developed into a contentious defamation lawsuit. In addition to Musk’s call for the case to be dismissed, his attorneys also released excerpts of a deposition in which the Tesla CEO defended his support of an investigation of Unsworth by invoking Jeffrey Epstein, as well as a statement from the head of Musk’s family office, who hired an alleged former British intelligence agent to compile a dossier on the cave rescuer.

In his statement to the court, Jared Birchall, the head president of Excession LLC, Musk’s family office, wrote that he hired James Howard, a private investigator and president of Jupiter Military & Tactical Systems in August 2018, after Howard reached out to Musk “to provide investigation services.” Using the alias “James Brickhouse” and an associated email, Birchall began to have regular contact with Howard over “Project Rowena,” their code name for the investigation into Unsworth.

“There is some urgency to the situation,” Birchall wrote in an email on Aug. 27, 2018 to Howard, who claimed to have worked with MI5 and for billionaires including George Soros. “We believe there are planned attacks in the media and/or a lawsuit that are imminent. With that said, we aren’t looking to frame anyone.” In the email, Birchall, also included a list of questions he and Musk wanted answered.

Earlier that August, lawyers representing Unsworth had sent a letter to Musk’s residence asking for Musk to correct the public record regarding his “pedo guy” tweets. The day after Birchall sent the email to Howard, Musk asked on Twitter if “it’s strange” that Unsworth hadn’t sued him yet.

That same day, Unsworth’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, announced he was preparing a civil complaint for libel against Musk. BuzzFeed News would later email Musk questions about the legal threat, prompting the billionaire to claim in emails to this reporter that Unsworth was a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”

Howard sent a dossier on Unsworth dated Aug. 30, 2018 to Birchall with largely unverified claims about his activities in Thailand. That dossier, as well as prior conversations between Birchall and Howard, became the basis for Musk’s learnings about Unsworth.

“Mr Unsworth is 63 years old,” Howard and his team wrote in the report. “His wife we believe is 30, (we will confirm this in the next 48hrs) which would have put her at 18/19 when they first met. The target would have been 52 yrs old at the time.”

Howard also attempted to tie Unsworth to Pattaya, a Thai resort city. Unsworth in a sworn deposition has since denied ever visiting the area.

“If this is the case that Mr. Unsworth choose to live in Pattaya Beach before moving to Northern Thailand, then it would be a strong indicator as to his lifestyle interests,” the report read. “If we can establish that Mr Unsworth was a regular visitor to this part of Thailand which is not known for its extensive cave networks then this is something that may support the assumption that he is a ‘Sexpat.’”

“I don’t know if it is true. But what if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?”

In his sworn statement about the report, Birchall noted that when he shared the information with Musk he “did not know or believe that information was untrue.” Birchall and Musk did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.

“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” Unsworth’s lawyer Wood said in a statement. “Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”

Unsworth’s legal team deposed Musk last month in Beverly Hills. In his testimony, the billionaire said that his research into the cave rescuer began when he googled “Chiang Rai” following a CNN International appearance in which Unsworth criticized Musk’s involvement in the rescue efforts.

“When I said ‘pedo guy,’ I didn’t mean that he was literally a pedophile; it was just an insult,” Musk said. “But after getting this information from this investigator through Jared, I was like, well, maybe he is actually a pedophile. Is this possible?”

In his deposition, Musk also mentioned Jeffrey Epstein — who by that time had committed suicide while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges — as a motivation to inform reporters about what he had supposedly learned about Unsworth. It’s since been reported that Musk had been to several events with Epstein following the financier’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, and visited his house “several years ago”. Musk said in a statement to Vanity Fair earlier this year that “Epstein is obviously a creep.”

“I am told this information,” Musk said in his deposition. “I don’t know if it is true. But what if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands? And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from the cave rescue to shield his bad deed? That would be terrible.”

Musk also noted that he never spoke to the investigator directly, instead relying on Birchall to convey “an accurate retelling.”

“The investigator appeared to be credible,” Musk said. “I did not make these comments on the record. I didn’t mean for them ever to be published in any way, shape, or form.”

BuzzFeed News investigated Musk’s claims at the time and interviewed Unsworth’s longtime girlfriend, who said she was 40, but found no evidence supporting his allegations.

“This is what I’ve been told,” Musk said of his decision to email this reporter with his claims. “May or may not be true; please investigate.”

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2IaSDCI via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

tvdas · 6 years

Photo

Calling Prophet Muhammad a Pedophile Does Not Fall Within Freedom of Speech: European Court

[Mark Steyn wrote this column entitled “Rationalizing Our Surrender” on Nov. 5.] Many readers have asked me to comment on the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights, summarized in the headline:

Calling Prophet Muhammad a Pedophile Does Not Fall Within Freedom of Speech: European Cour

And yet, oddly, calling Muhammad a prophet now seems to be binding on non-Muslim headline writers. I don’t really have anything to say about this case that I haven’t said a decade and a half back and at great length in my book America Alone - to whit, absent any reversal of the demographic trends, some of the oldest nations in Christendom would soon begin making their accommodations with an ever more assertive Islam.

But, alas, nobody who matters listened to me, and thus “soon” has now arrived - which is why the most powerful European institutions (courts, media, police, bureaucracy) are increasingly eager to shovel core Western liberties into the landfill.

With regard to this particular case, I wrote about it at the time - seven long years ago:

Consider the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife who has lived in several Muslim countries. She was hauled into an Austrian court for calling Mohammed a pedophile on the grounds that he consummated his marriage when his bride, Aisha, was nine years old. Mrs. Sabbaditsch-Wolff was found guilty and fined 480 euros. The judge’s reasoning was fascinating: ‘Paedophilia is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.’

Ah, gotcha. So, under Austrian law, you’re not a pedophile if you deflower the kid in fourth grade but keep her around till high school. There’s a useful tip if you’re planning a hiking holiday in the Alps this fall. Or is this another of those dispensations that is not of universal application?

We now know the answer to that question. For the record, I have met Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff just once - at the European Parliament a few years back. She is a most forceful and engaging personality. You get no sense of that from the Court’s decision, of course, where the appellant has degenerated to a mere set of initials – “E S”. One of the revolting aspects of Continental “justice” is the way the police and media preference for the non-identification of “victims” has expanded to a general denial of the specific humanity of those who come before the courts. I had cause the other day to recall the ancient legal principle that the public has the right to every man’s evidence. But, increasingly, not in Europe. So Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff is now “E S”.

The ruling itself is a sobering read. You’ll recall a few years back that President Obama assured us that “the future will not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”. De facto, that appears to be true, but de jure it’s a problematic concept in that, in English law and elsewhere, it’s not technically possible to “slander” a bloke who's been six foot under for 1,400 years. You can’t libel the dead. So instead the Euro-jurists have been forced to take refuge in the slippery concept (very familiar to those of us who’ve been ensnared in Canada’s “human rights” machinery” of “balance”:

In today's Chamber judgment 1 in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the applicant's conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.

The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected...

Whoa, hold it right there. There was “no violation” of freedom of expression because the courts “carefully balanced” freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected - and came down on the side of protecting feelings rather than freedom of expression.

The late Jennifer Lynch, QC, then head of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, used to talk about “balancing” free speech with other rights - and, then as now, “balancing” is code for nullifying: If your right to free speech has to be balanced with people’s “feelings”, then as a practical matter there is no free speech.

There is also no truth: It is not the defendant who “had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies” but the Hadith, which after the Koran are the most sacred foundational texts of Islam and in whose literal truth Muslims are enjoined to believe:

[60] What about he, who consummated marriage with a girl of nine

5158- Urwa narrated: The Messenger of Allah ‘Allah's blessing and peace be upon him’ married A’isha when she was six years old, and consummated his marriage with her when she was nine. She remained with him nine years (till he died).

So it’s not that it’s illegal to “suggest” that the Big Mo “had paedophilic tendencies”, it’s just illegal to suggest there’s anything wrong with that. . . . This dispensation is not of universal application. . . . If you spent (like the girls I met two years ago) a decade of your life being passed around dozens, hundreds of “Asian” men in Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale, Oxford, Bristol, Sheffield, Newcastle and on and on, that’s rather bad luck on your part but it’s not really a “suggestion” of anything prosecutable, is it? Especially if you’re suggesting that there might be any connection between the relaxed attitude to child sexual abuse that one observes in, ahem, certain communities throughout Europe and scriptural authorities that might provide a justification thereof. As the European Court noted:

The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.

That is a disturbing basis on which to license speech. The full decision goes even further, and is a revealing glimpse of the state’s willingness to shrivel “free speech” to the point where the term is rendered meaningless:

The Regional Court further stated that anyone who wished to exercise their rights under Article 10 of the Convention was subject to duties and responsibilities, such as refraining from making statements which hurt others without reason and therefore did not contribute to a debate of public interest. A balancing exercise between the rights under Article 9 on the one hand and those under Article 10 on the other needed to be carried out. The court considered that the applicant's statements were not statements of fact, but derogatory value judgments which exceeded the permissible limits. It held that the applicant had not intended to approach the topic in an objective manner, but had directly aimed to degrade Muhammad. The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam, but also used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties.

Great. So maybe in Rotherham they should just start marrying the six-year-olds and all will be well. It should hardly be necessary to state that freedom of speech except for “statements which hurt others” and do “not contribute to a debate” or “approach the topic in an objective manner” is not freedom of speech at all, but merely-narrowly construed state-regulated speech. And in Europe the courts are perfectly cool with that:

The interference with the applicant’s freedoms under Article 10 of the Convention had therefore been justified. As to the applicant’s argument that those who participated in the seminar knew of her critical approach and could not be offended, the Court of Appeal found that the public seminar had been offered for free to young voters by the Austrian Freedom Party Education Institute, and at least one participant had been offended, as her complaints had led to the applicant being charged.

That was an anonymous undercover “journalist” - because the media regard “E S” as a greater threat than the Islamization of Austria.

I see that Irish voters have just voted to repeal their ancient and unused (Christian) blasphemy laws following a similar repeal a decade ago in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland retain them, so the advice on either side of the Irish Sea is, if minded to Christian heresy, take a short drive south. But where do you motor if minded to Islamic apostasy? From the Court’s conclusion:

The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society

The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

The right “to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society”: Good luck with that. There will be much more of this: In the interests of “religious peace”, the prohibitions of Islam are being extended to infidels, and the linguistic contortions of courts and media and police and bureaucrats confirm that Europe has moved on to the next tragic stage of its civilizational suicide: rationalizing its surrender.

0 notes

ellenlucasonlinedatingblog · 6 years

Text

Enough with "Alleged" and Other Weasel Words

Living in 2017 means waking up to new reports about sexual assault and harassment committed by men in power on a near-daily basis. It’s amazing to see so many people coming forward to speak about what’s happened to them. It’s heartening that the response is often very supportive. We’re apparently (finally) ready to start having a serious conversation about these abuses.

But it also has me thinking a lot of thoughts about rape culture; not just as a person who thinks rape culture is awful, but as a journalist who reports on these issues. The media can be a double-edged sword. At times it brings the unseen to light and forces us to confront it, but at other times, it reinforces harmful social attitudes and norms. Sometimes that reinforcement is completely unconscious.

*Why do I say survivor/victim? Lots of people have different ways for thinking about sexual assault, and those frameworks help them explore what happened to them and how it interacts with society. Some people prefer to identify as victims, but other people prefer to say “survivor,” so I acknowledge both.

You can probably think of some examples of reporting on crime that blame the victim, whether it’s stories about rapes that mention what the survivor/victim* was wearing, murders where someone’s history as a sex worker is brought up, or mentions of someone’s perceived attractiveness in an article about a horrible violation that person experienced. Rape, sexual harassment, and violence are about power and control, not sex, but sensationalized reporting on these issues can definitely suggest otherwise.

There’s another, more basic way in which the media perpetuates rape culture. You’ll probably spot it if you check out the front page of a newspaper or the landing page of a major news organization. It’s in the headlines you skim every day.

How many times have you seen something like this?

Teacher Had Sex with Schoolgirl, Victim Alleges

Accusations from Alleged Victims Mount Against Prominent Man

Woman Claims Comedian Made Explicit Sexual Remarks Backstage

Actor Claims He Was ‘Raped’ By Director in 1988

Woman Confronts Her Alleged Rapist

Had sex with — that very phrasing takes rape and sexual assault out of the picture, because they “had sex.” Alleged. Accused. Claims.

We call these “weasel words” or “hedges,” language that softens the content of a headline. In nations with very strict libel laws, like the UK, people say this is necessary to protect publications from lawsuits. In other countries, it may be spun as giving someone a fair say, for being stained with such a sensitive, awful crime could be damaging to someone’s reputation.

For a number of years, I spent a lot of time painstakingly explaining this to people.

“You see,” I would say, patronizingly, “the case hasn’t actually gone to trial, so they can’t call him a rapist.” Or: “We say ‘had sex with’ because the teacher hasn’t been convicted of rape, I know, it’s clumsy, but what are you going to do?”

I did it because that was what editors told me every time they wrote a headline (fun fact: most journalists do not write our own headlines) or tweaked the phrasing in an article. I did it because that was what I was taught, and in the United States, where “innocent until proved guilty” is a national refrain (even though it’s only a standard we usually hold for white dudes with power), it felt “wrong” to do otherwise. It was repeated over and over again: Don’t condemn some poor innocent man to harassment or lost opportunities by describing him as a rapist without a conviction. So he’d become an “alleged” rapist, and his victim/survivor would be making a “claim,” and sexual assault turned into “had sex with.”

Because that’s how you do it, right?

But here’s the thing: Journalism is about accuracy, and my stance on this issue shifted radically the longer I worked in the field, and the longer I interacted with and came to better understand rape culture. It is possible to accurately report on sexual harassment and assault without using weasel words that cloud meaning or suggest victims are liars. The logic behind language like “alleged,” “accused,” and “claimed” is that they indicate that someone said another person committed a crime, but the matter hasn’t gone to trial, so we can’t say for sure.

There was another word in the last sentence there that people are strangely reluctant to use: “Said.” Which is a pretty value-neutral way of describing a situation. You’re reporting on what an actual human literally said. The article will provide more detail on what was said and the status of any investigation into what the person said.

What’s the difference between: “Student says she was raped by three classmates on field trip” and “Student alleges she was raped by three classmates on field trip”? Is it splitting hairs? I don’t think so.

Both headlines are accurate, but one centers the voice of the student, and one distances the student from the reporting and introduces a note of doubt. There’s nothing libel-inducing in “student says,” as it’s reporting the truth: The student said she was raped.

When it becomes “alleged” or “claims,” it sounds like maybe we don’t believe the student. It casts doubt on whether a crime occurred at all, let alone who might have committed it. It tells victims and survivors who speak out that they can’t be taken at their word. With a long history of treating people who report rape like liars, language that subtly casts doubt on what a person says also sets someone up for disbelief, harassment, and abuse. This kind of language establishes doubt as the status quo, rather than belief, and support.

At Deadspin, Diana Moskovitz recently made the case against “allegedly,” noting that crime reporting — which is what this is, sexual assault and harassment are crimes — is built around doubt, and when nothing is certain, you have to pick through your words carefully and consider their power. But, Moskovitz notes, journalists have biases, and these come through in their work as well as in the systemic patterns and norms of the industry – like the norm that says you have to put scare quotes around “rape” in a headline or stress that someone made an “accusation.”

Reporters treat each source differently based on how credible they think they are, or just how much power that person has to make the lives of reporters miserable if they make an error. So while the women speaking out against Weinstein are accusers who allege allegations, the district attorney who refused to prosecute Weinstein has his words treated as facts, like in this NBC New York headline.

Try it sometime: Skim over some articles and headlines and see how media organizations attribute the sources of information.

High profile people, major organizations, people in power, and official spokespeople are often given the benefit of a “said”: “The company said the data breach only affected a small number of customers.” “The actor’s representative said it was a consensual sexual relationship.” Weasel words start to show up when a journalist deliberately wants to cast doubt on a subject, often serving as a wink or a sly nod to the reader: “A White House spokesperson claimed the statement was taken out of context.”

Casting doubt on rape victims/survivors is so normalized that weasel words are built into how the media talks about their cases.

Think about it when you talk with friends: When you say: “my friend said polls closed early,” the implication is often “this is legit info.” What about when your friend “claims,” though. How does your interpretation of that statement change? Does it become “well, maybe the polls closed early, but maybe not, we really need more information to be sure”? Think about how these words are sometimes used as jokes and in sarcasm: “Allegedly she was going to finish her homework” or “she claims her dog ate her homework.”

We’re all tangled up in rape culture together here, which is why our choice of words and how we wield language matters. Why, as Moskovitz says, should people in power be given endless benefit of the doubt and a gentle treatment in the media, while the powerless who are speaking out are undermined in the headlines? How do you use language like “claim,” “allege,” “accuse,” and “said”?

Words mean things.

If you’ve been struck by the growing number of people speaking out, ask yourself how you can use your words as resistance. Maybe for you that’s: correcting people who use weasel words; writing letters to the paper when it employs them in headlines; encouraging friends to reframe the way they talk about sexual assault; leading a teach-in on more mindful phrasing; doing a find and replace in your essays and other writing for weasel words; and considering that the way people use language may tell you something about them.

For extra credit, think about flipping this language on its head to underscore how absurd it is: Try using weasel words to describe information that is clearly factually correct, and also pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and see how people react. (“She claimed it rained yesterday.” “They allege they had a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.”)

And when someone approaches you to say they’ve been sexually assaulted? Say: “I believe you” and “what can I do to support you?”

#metoo

words

journalism

talk

rape culture

abuse

assault

victim blaming

sexual

rape

survivor

support

blame

shame

do better

from Meet Positives SM Feed 4 http://ift.tt/2BOmEqb via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SM Feed 4

0 notes

rfschatten · 7 years

Photo

Resign, Impeached, Go to Jail, or what’s behind Door 4

The Trump Administration has been officially in a state of chaos since, Jan. 20th, 2017!...and the hits just keep on coming!

When the final 3 alternatives for Donald Trump are option 1) Resign 2) Get Impeached 3) Go Directly to Jail...The Trumpster will go for what's behind Door 4! A coup of our Democracy! In the case of Impeachment? Scene 1 Act 1: Declare Marshall Law, and suspend all elections (cause they are all rigged!) Then shut the "American Free Press", cause they're just Fake News and the enemy of Donald Trump...thus, the enemy of the State...and the enemy of the American People!

A Coup? Yes! more and more serious academics and politicos...including Yale University History Professor Timothy Snyder...are coming up with the same conclusion! If push comes to shove...in lieu of being Exposed or Impeached, a thin-skinned Donald Trump, in all his Trump fashion will attempt a "Putsch"! Most likely with the assistance of his 'Beer Hall' buddy Steve Bannon, coordinating things. But, like his Presidency...they 'all' expect he'll fail miserably!

Trump's assault on the 1st Amendment. Trump and Bannon's intention of removing piece by piece the 1st Amendment from American History: Freedom of the Press, and the Freedom of Speech & Expression...and he's already doing it!...by alienating our Free Press both literally, and alienating it from the Public. A systematic policy of False Information and blaming the "Fake News"...making it that more and more people everyday question's the Press!

Trumpism's deep hostility on the Press is not something new. As a child, he would not tolerate being criticized or mocked. As an Adult, Money Lawyers and lots of Money silenced his critics and his accusers. And now as King Pussy Grabber with absolute Power? Wanting to tear apart US Libel Laws to intimidate the press, cutting the press off, thoughts of eliminating Press Briefings, and forbidding coverage of Presidential Meetings inside the White House with Russian Ministers and Ambassadors...who are usually not supposed to be there, cause they're also infamously, Foreign Intelligence Officers!

Lesson One in "Politics 101 for Dummies"; It's not nice or politically wise to ever alienate your own Press, not when they can come back to haunt you some day with a swift kick of criminal exposure on your Prussian-Scottish arse! Oh, Donny!...Karma sure is a Bitch!

So! A White House meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, every Trump Administrators' best friend, the widely popular Russian Ambassador Sergei Kyslyak, and King Donald excluded the American Press...but the Orange Puppet, invited the Russian Press to join in the talks! Only hours after firing Jim Comey for investigating Him and Putin! WTF?? What an insulting slap in the Face to all Americans by Donald Trump!! A President who favors America's longtime natural enemy, its Leader, and its 'State' Press, over his own Country?...anyway you cut it...Trump's a F**cking Traitor!!

And what did Trump and McMaster show the Russians? Deeply word coded, "Classified" intelligence information to the Russians at the Oval Office. Official WH horseshit tale? First Trump & McMaster denied it, then a couple of days later, they both admitted it. Interesting! Then, you wonder why the American Press was kept out?!?! McMaster says it was perfectly correct to show the Russians the info. NO!!!! you don't show your longtime adversary or anyone else, the United States' most deeply held Secret Intelligence Information...it's called TREASON!...Julius & Ethel Rosenberg were guilty cause they sold Secrets. Trump & McMasters...they sold an entire Nation out! And despicable sold out the "Source of the Info", and the town where his cover is deeply infiltrated!! No lethal injection for the Trumpster...a "Gold" Electric Chair, with the ghosts of Julius and Ethel witnessing the end of a True Traitor!

Of course, next step for the Glory of Fascism is canceling Free Elections...it's hard to have Free Elections when everyone hates your guts! And now he's trying to convince his Kool-Aid Minions that Elections cause wide-spread fraud and crime...so it would be better just to eliminate them, altogether! And if that doesn't work? Burn the Americans' "Reichstag"...'that' psychology worked for Germany!

How ironic that comedians all joked about 2016 being "Our Last Election" and the end of Democracy! Trumpism's continuous public attacks on Judges who don't agree with his views? Yes! they too are very seriously real! And his ideas of reforming the Judicial System to conform to and execute the Trumpster's Policies and Orders...or else? Echoes of those days, 1945-1949 Nuremberg, and its hangings!...especially the Judiciary ones.

The Trumpster's lack of humor and his disdain for Comics...cause they hurt the poor baby's little feelings is more than obvious. Prosecute Comedians? For exercising their constitutional right of Free Speech & Expression to critically make lewd jokes?...while hypocritically making his own embarrassing, and now historically lewd comments all his life, along with all his despicable actions to probably everyone in this Country, and don't forget his disrespectful manners towards Vets...and really...towards everyone else! And never ever! forget his repulsive acts of mocking disabled people!

The problem? This thin-skinned narcissist is a 70yrs. old spoiled cry baby, who has temper tantrums if anyone, ever dares to make fun of him or criticize him! Donny! Donny! Donny! Hey, listen bubeleh! Grow up, learn a little, put up with it, shut up, and just live Life before your Blood Pressure kills ya!...you sure do like sh*t! Listen, Don! Don't tell anyone...being criticized by the entire world, goes with the job!...it's that part of politics where a man's real character shows who's a real leader, and who's just a real wannabee! So, you wanted to be President??...surprise!!!

And the Republican Party? An absolutely successful Castration procedure by Trump and his Goons...almost unanimously partisan, they all march to beat of Trumpism with the complete lack of "Cojones" to stand, pull up their pants, zip them, and tell Trump their bromance is over...and it's time recover their Party and the dignity of their Souls! Every single one of these spineless cowards, refuse to attend their respective community's continually angrier and rowdier Town Hall Meetings, cause they're screwing America for the Big Money, behind Door number 4!...and not a single one, is Macho enough to tell it to their faces!! Like their Grand Supreme Coward...sink America 1st and grab what you can, before you're out too! Big Shame! on the American Public to permit all of this! These "Civil Servants" are all degenerates that know exactly what would happen if that Air of Authoritarian Living settles down over this Nation...yet, they don't give a f**k!

Trump, Russia, Flynn, & Cover-ups "You can’t put in the fix by removing somebody"! John Dean knows a little bit about Scandals, Cover-ups, and Prison...18 months' worth! Take his word, America...he knows better about Presidential Politics and the Law than most other people around; “The firing raised so many questions. How can you conclude anything but that Trump knows he’s got problems? … Every move they make keeps signaling ‘coverup’...if they think they can influence the Russian investigation by removing Comey, they are naïve. I learned from my own experience that you can’t put in the fix by removing somebody.”

A Trump/Russia Investigation that every time someone opens his or her mouth, another Trump associate is connected to this whole mess. It's amazing how popular the Russian Ambassador is!...and how many people connected with The Family Trump, the Trump Corp, the Trump Campaign, the Trump Administration and all its Cabinet, Trump Business Associates, and even personal friends, knows this guy! Coincidence? Coincidences? when it's not just the Ambassador, but Russian Mobsters, Russian Bankers, Russian Business Developers, other assorted Ministers and other Russian Government Officials...including their ever present Russian "Attaches" (AKA) - Intel Agents. Every one of these Russians has had more than a casual personal contact or connections with about almost everyone ever connected to Donald Trump!...in one way or another! That's one giant "Awesome" load of trash to convict for Treason!

So many Treasonous Acts by so many Trumpsters...using a new Scandal to Cover-up an older one, is just not going to work...it'll just be another addendum to the heap of insane actions. So, it all goes back to the Trump/Russian Investigation!...and you got to start with the star attraction...Michael Flynn, and his refusal to talk or deliver his documents unless he gets a plea bargain. No problem, Mike! A Congressional subpoena for the Documents has been issued, and another one for you to testify! This tale of unraveling events is becoming quite interesting...add James Comey into this mix and expect fireworks! He's testifying again, and this time in "Closed Hearing"...certainly, classified info is going to be passed around! Sooner or later, the scandal is going to erupt like a Volcano and burn a lot of Republicans...even more, than it already has...in Capital Hill! Comey? he's demanding one final Testimony...in Public, in front of the Senate Committee.

In today's world, people don't need to read much to see what is happening, nothing is truer than natural human emotions...and body language doesn't lie! TV screens don’t lie!! The Truth is right in front of you, and you just can't hide from it, anymore!! All of Trump's own Conflicts of Interests are a mere speck, compared to this Criminal Act of Conflict of Interest: A President under criminal investigation, firing the Man who is Investigating him and the Russians? Then a Criminal Act of Treason...inviting the Russian Officials to the WH, kicking the American Press out, and showing the Russkies ultra-sensitive Classified Info??? No imbecilic horseshit tale of how Comey hurt his poor friend, Crooked Hillary, with that fake email scandal...days before the Election, and no tales of how Legal is the treasonous act of showing Highly Sensitive US Intelligence to a Foreign Government that's not even one of our Allies!...but, our Adversaries!!!

You can't hide the cover-up of Russian assistance and interference in his narrow win, anymore! Confirmed evidence suggests the Russian Government 'was' actively involved in helping Trump by a massive systematic plan of discrediting Clinton, and other types of hackings directly affecting the Election...also, the amount of Rouble Invested on their Puppet, circulated via Slush Funds and the final Money Laundering involving Trump, Russian Bankers, Putin, and Deutsche Bank in Germany! And, are still actively Involved in destabilizing our American Democracy, throughout the Country!

Changing his own story from Sessions' Recommendation...which would be considered a criminal act for violating his recusal...to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's Advice to fire Comey. Now, that Rosenstein threatened to resign if accused of that Lie, Trump recanted that tale and changed his story all together...again! Now? he was going to eventually fire Comey, regardless of anyone's recommendation!...really? Strong Warnings from Barack Obama, when Obama and Trump met at the White House following the Elections. And from Sally Yates, when she brought him all her evidence to the White House...18 days before Trump fired Flynn.

Donald Trump has in his own ingenious way, managed to trap himself in a web where there's really no way out! What you see is a man desperately trying to hide his actions, his connections, and his timeline, from being exposed for being the person America and the rest of the World already know he really is; A little man-child who's Vladimir Putin's Puppet!

"You can’t put in the fix by removing somebody"! The Trumpster's fatal flaw?...firing people right and left like the Apprentice, all to cover up his lifelong unbelievable knack for corruption! Stupid is as Stupid Does...and the more he screws up, the louder the call for a treasonous Cover-up! But in the end, it all comes down to the Prosecution and Impeachment processes. If the GOP and the DOJ get their way, and cowardly let it all just fade away? Then, my friends...it's time to learn the virtues of Fascism and White Nationalism...and seriously become informed of its consequences!

Dear America! Avoid that "Fabulously Awesome" Kool-Aid, our President and his "Beer Hall Putsch" pals are feverishly trying to push the public to swallow!...keep away from the Trump horseshit and its addiction to that Taste of Ignorance! But most important of all...really! more important than anything else!...please! stay away from their revolting and sick Prussian Nazi world of"Schadenfreude"!! Schadenfreude; "The Pleasure or Self-satisfaction derived from the misfortunes or failures of others", and "Delighting in other people's Misfortunes", is costing this Nation irreparable damage of disrespect from the World, that will not be repaired till way after we're all gone from this Earth...yet, not too many in this Country ever think about it and/or its implications!

Americans! We're precisely at the pinnacle of the darkest moment in the 241 years of our extremely fragile Democracy! Resist and Never Surrender to Trumpism's wave of ignorance!...or accept living an Authoritarian Lifestyle!

Just remember! We, the People are stronger than any major Autocrat or two-bit Dictator could ever be!...if this Nation turns towards Fascism, it's because 'we' allowed it to happen! The fate of this shallow little worm, but, way much more important...the fate of our Nation...is in our hands!!

#donald trump #@impeachment #russiatrump #GOP #James Comey #fbi director #Scnada #Scandal #Smoking Gun #Vladimir Putin #President of the United States

0 notes