From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 18:28:53 MST
John Clarke wrote:
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au> Wrote:
>
> > In a nutshell, [Laws against defamation are needed] because
> > people rely on their reputations for their livelihood.
>
> I think it would be wrong for me to charge somebody with libel, my
> reputation should be determined by those who use it, that is by everybody
> except me.
Fair enough. Some folks are perhaps better able to shrug off petty slights
and one does not need to actually pursue a defamation case if one does
not want to.
But it can take a lifetime of careful and fair dealing to earn a person the
sort of good reputation that enables their name to act as a brand and for
them to get serious things done.
>In the long run it is their best interests that my reputation be
> neither too high nor too low but accurate, as for me I just want it to be
as
> high as possible and hang the truth. Best if they decide what is true or
> false not me.
Unfortunately "they" includes both ones customers and ones competitors.
If one has a competitor with a bad reputation that competitors best way
to level the playing field may be to attack the reputation of others.
> >truth alone is not sufficient defence
>
> "If the law supposes that, 'said Mr. Bumble' the law is a ass, a idiot."
> Charles Dickens from Oliver Twist
A good point.
I like the way that in trials they ask people if they'll swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Then later they ask a question that must be answered yes or no and
their is no possibility of the whole truth coming out.
Yeah the laws an ass. But what's the alternative?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST