[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more ideas on anonymity
Perry Metzger writes:
> > From: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
> > I see. So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.
> > And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
> > show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV. And it didn't do
> > anybody any harm at all. Uh huh.
> > Try again.....
> I believe that Theodore is confusing the notion of tort and the notion of
[disctinction between crimes and torts wrt slander and libel...]
> The issue is if a
> non-anonymous individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, says something
> that is false.
Remember the intent as well. It is not enough that one utters false
statements, one must also intend to do damage with those statements (the
"malice aforethoght" part). If I honestly thought that GM trucks were
firebombs waiting to happen and told someone else I am not being libelous,
but if I were to publish a statement that I knew was untrue (or one in
which I was negligent in my research, but I am not sure about this...) then
I might have a date in court in the near future...
Either way, these actions are civil one, not criminal. The U.S. government
is extremely limited in it's ability to use prior restraint to prevent
publication of something (although there are many ways around the existing
protections, as many on this list will undoubtably attest to.)