Libel Law

[Van]

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch thinks our laws against libel should be revisited, here is part of his statement:

He said the standard incentivized ignorance over traditional journalistic practices and favored "those who can disseminate the most sensational information as efficiently as possible without any particular concern for truth."

On our board, we have posters who, IMHO, purposely misrepresent the truth with impunity. And there is no quick or easy fix. I see posters violating forum rules about addressing positions, not posters non-stop. But on the other hand, I am sure Forum leaders do their best to moderate objectively.

Disregard for truth, in my opinion, is a marker for a non-born anew person, even if they profess belief. But no one can discern that spiritual truth, and we are leave the "rooting out" operation to God. However, perhaps we can do better when a person posts inference as fact.

 

[canadyjd]

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch thinks our laws against libel should be revisited, here is part of his statement:


On our board, we have posters who, IMHO, purposely misrepresent the truth with impunity. And there is no quick or easy fix. I see posters violating forum rules about addressing positions, not posters non-stop. But on the other hand, I am sure Forum leaders do their best to moderate objectively.

Disregard for truth, in my opinion, is a marker for a non-born anew person, even if they profess belief. But no one can discern that spiritual truth, and we are leave the "rooting out" operation to God. However, perhaps we can do better when a person posts inference as fact.

Who gets to define “truth” on this board and in a court of law.

It seems that’s a huge issue with media companies censoring many conservatives and declaring their opinions as “misinformation” to justify the action.

As far as this board goes, the mods do a good job allowing a free flow of ideas and opinions as long as the personal attacks are limited and no outright heresies are being proclaimed.

peace to you

 

[SGO]

If the mods are bald there is no hair I see.

 

[Van]

Who gets to define “truth” on this board and in a court of law.

It seems that’s a huge issue with media companies censoring many conservatives and declaring their opinions as “misinformation” to justify the action.

As far as this board goes, the mods do a good job allowing a free flow of ideas and opinions as long as the personal attacks are limited and no outright heresies are being proclaimed.

peace to you

There is no issue with knowing truth.
The issue is that on line forums are used by folks with "no regard for truth."

 

[canadyjd]

There is no issue with knowing truth.
The issue is that on line forums are used by folks with "no regard for truth."

And the best remedy is for who know the truth to state it plainly

peace to you

 

[Van]

And the best remedy is for who know the truth to state it plainly

peace to you

No, the remedy is to hold accountable those who knowingly deceive...

 

[canadyjd]

No, the remedy is to hold accountable those who knowingly deceive...

If a lawsuit is filed every time someone thinks another has lied, the courts would do nothing else.

peace to you

 

[Van]

If a lawsuit is filed every time someone thinks another has lied, the courts would do nothing else.

peace to you

I think the "two wrongs make a right" argument is fallacious.

 

[37818]

No, the remedy is to hold accountable those who knowingly deceive...

Well said. But from what I have seen, forms of ad hominem attacks aside, like false accusations, some actucally believe their views. The arguments go in circles.

 

[37818]

I think the "two wrongs make a right" argument is fallacious.

Huh? The saying as I have heard it, "two wrong don't make a right."