I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate. But hey, that's me and I'm a free speech supporter.

>I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

Do you also believe that calling somebody a "serial sexual harrasser" should never be libel, even when inaccurate?

"Sexual predator"?

>I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

So, what is your definition for libel? As it doesn't appear to be the same one in common usage. I am massively in favour of free speech, but I suspect even Voltaire would want some method of restitution to be available should people be spreading lies about him around town.

> spreading lies about him around town

Whether something is libel and unprotected would obviously depend on the lie. We seem to agree about that so I'm not sure what you're claiming I believe.

I actually think that it depends pretty much completely on the context. There is no list of phrases that are innocent or malicious in and of themselves. Something that can seem innoccuous in most situations can be a matter of life or death in others. So no, I don't think we seem to agree. And could you answer the question rather than dancing around it?

What about calling someone a pedophile? Should that also not be libel?

And before you claim it's different because being a pedophile is a crime - it's not a crime. Acting on it is. Just how being racist isn't a crime, but refusing to serve customers based on race is.

What about "jerk?" Should that be libel if there's no evidence the person is a jerk?

There can't be, because "jerk" is a subjective assessment, and defamation requires a statement of fact. The "falsifiability" rubric Rayiner has been using is helpful. I'm not a lawyer, but I read lots of defamation lawyers, and note that you can further extend the requirements for defamation:

* It's (apparently, in many circumstances, consult lawyer) not defamation to relate your interpretation of facts already on the record. In other words, it's often not defamation if you're simply wrong about something, so long as you're not relating your wrongness in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to think you're authoritative for your claim. "Based on a bunch of stuff I read in the paper, Gibson's has a history of racial profiling" might be a much safer thing to say than "as faculty and administrators of Oberlin College I'm informing you that Gibson's has a history of racial profiling".

* If the injured party is a "public figure", you have to do more than prove a falsifiable false statement that causes actual injury; you also have to prove malicious intent, meaning that the speaker knows that what they're saying is false, and is saying it specifically in order to harm someone.

> you also have to prove malicious intent, meaning that the speaker knows that what they're saying is false, and is saying it specifically in order to harm someone.

I think you're talking about "actual malice" which as I understand it does not require a particular intent. It is just that you know the statement is false (or have reckless disregard for whether it is false or not). It doesn't matter why you said it.

See this is why people call out "not a lawyer" on message board threads; you're right, "actual malice" is apparently knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

That's a good point. The difference is that 'jerk' is on its face a subjective assessment, an opinion, while 'racist' is less so. I have a feeling there's supreme court precedent drawing a more exact line.

Of course, devoid of context, 'racist' is pretty subjective as well. I'm guessing if the statements had been left sufficiently ambiguous, they might have gotten away with it. But they weren't - they accused them of a very specific racism, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth.

From a quick search, looks like in cases such as these, the standard would be that the statements are made with 'actual malice' [1].

Edit: I noticed you asked what the law should be, not what it is. I guess I'm not so sure of the answer, but I'd venture that statements made with 'actual malice' should be included in libel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Priva...

> I don't think simply calling somebody "racist" should EVER be libel. Even when inaccurate.

You're a racist.

Just exercising free speech over here, am I doing this right?

Yep. Even if I had your name, I wouldn't sue! And if I did, I'd hope that it'd get laughed out of court.

Now imagine a world where I could win. For tens of millions of dollars. That should scare you. Thanks for making my point.

It would suck to live in a world where people can destroy your life by spreading lies about you, and you have no recourse. That's not the world we live in. What benefits do you think free-for-all slander and libel would give society exactly?

I think the idea is that the accusation of racism isn't really a concrete, well-defined concept that can be falsified: in terms of specificity, its closer to calling someone a dumbass or a butthead than it is to calling them eg a shoplifter; the former isn't legally actionable (right? Perhaps I'm wrong here), but the latter is concrete enough to be.

I'm not sure if I agree with the gp commenter, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly unreasonable opinion to hold.

I'll answer your question but I hope you answer mine: Do you think I should be able to successfully sue you for millions of dollars if you had SERIOUSLY just called me a racist? If not, we're closer in viewpoint than you want to admit.

Now to your question:

> What benefits do you think free-for-all slander and libel would give society exactly?

I DON'T favor "free-for-all" slander or libel. But to the extent that I draw the line differently from you, the benefit to society would be that society gets to debate what exactly it means to be racist and hopefully that open debate leads to something useful. I like the idea that you combat speech with more speech because I think it leads to better outcomes for all of us. I don't think it's helpful to have people live in fear of saying anything controversial.

> Do you think I should be able to successfully sue you for millions of dollars if you had SERIOUSLY just called me a racist?

If I damage you with lies in word or in print, you are entitled to be made whole. If I lied about you and it cost you millions of dollars as a result, yes, you should be allowed to sue me to get those millions back.

What problem do you have with this system?

Edit: and if the damages were done with malice, society is absolutely entitled to add punishment on top of correcting the harm that brought the case to court.

> What problem do you have with this system?

I think people define "racist" differently. Some see it in terms of systems. Some people think calling out racism is itself racist. Some view certain types of jokes as being a sign of being racist. There are as many definitions of the term as there are people.

I have repeatedly mentioned there are limits, but my problem with the system you laid out (which I'd argue is far more extreme than what was decided in this case) is that I'm a free speech guy who thinks we're better off when we can discuss issues openly.

> I'm a free speech guy who thinks we're better off when we can discuss issues openly.

You can already do this. You just can't harm people with your speech and expect no consequences.

Also, nobody gets sued for libel over honest debate. They do, however, face social repercussions for taking positions out of line with society's values. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

You just argued below that if I had bad economic impact based on the FACT that you called me a racist that I should be able to sue you over this very honest debate and win. You've taken a very extreme position here. At least one person, you, are arguing this. So don't say "nobody."

That's not an extreme position, it's the law of the land and has been for a long time. It's basic civil law that if you harm someone they can take you to court to be made whole. Civilization is sort of built on this concept.

The thing here is that you're not being harmed by rhetoric. If you were, you'd have a case.

> So if Eli Cash was my actual name (rather than a Royal Tenenbaums character), and if I didn't get a job because the employer googled my name and your claim came up..? You really think I'd have a real case?

Would a reasonable person read my post in context and somehow walk away believing you were a racist? You know they wouldn't.

> If you were, you'd have a case.

So if Eli Cash was my actual name (rather than a Royal Tenenbaums character), and if I didn't get a job because the employer googled my name and your claim came up..? You really think I'd have a real case?

I guess if we still disagree nothing can be done about that. We've both made our points.

No need to imagine. There are countries where you would win.