SJS wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure what a good solution is. Slander and libel are old
problems.
Hm...
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander
It seems under English common law, the publisher of such material
COULD be prosecuted. So it's not as a ridiculous concept on its
face as one might first think...
The article points out that in the USA, the law is quite a bit
different, but I find these two sentences very interesting:
Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE,
meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message
damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs
when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime,
of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's only libel or slander if untrue. But once accused, the burden of
proof would then be upon the accuser.
Of those three things, the president is guilty of at least two.
(Which president? Good luck pinning that down. ;) )
--
If you ... examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that
a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.
--US District Court Judge James C Fox 2003
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
