From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 00:24:43 MDT
On Thursday 19 June 2003 18:19, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
> (I have missed practically all the posts recently, but this one
> came to my attention by chance just now)
> > No. It is baseless slander to accuse people of supporting persons and
> > groups there is no evidence, except trumped up questionable reading into
> > statements or absence of same, that there is any such support.
>
> Right. What you literally write here is absolutely correct.
> The particular question concerned the charge (against an
> American) of being "anti-American". It is an exaggeration
> to say that this is necessarily slanderous. It will depend
> on what "anti-American" means: for example, it may mean those
> who are always against American foreign policy. Still, I
> totally agree that such a charge, if not expressed as a possibility
> or phrased as a question, could turn out to be not only wrong,
> but insulting and inflammatory.
>
I still don't see there is any question how it will "turn out" when people on
this list have been accused directly of supporting various direct enemies
only on the basis of disagreeing with our misadventure in Iraq, for instance.
The question of what is meant is no longer present when the accusations get
that explicit. So why leave the benefit of the doubt with those making such
accusations?
> > Why is the burden of effort on those who are the victims of the
> > slander? The slander itself is against the principles of this list.
>
> Because, Samantha, it cannot be so easily established that it
> *is* slander! In fact the charge of slander fits into this
> very same category: if it is not expressed as a possibility
> or phrased as a question, then it itself may turn out to be
> wrong, or at least insulting and inflammatory.
>
It it about as obvious as the nose on your face. I regret that you choose to
use your fine mind and rhetorical skills to ignore something so blatant.
> You can't *automatically* declare something to be slander
> and thus make it so!
>
Please tell me what would not be slander if accusing people of outrageous
postions, attitudes and character flaws thaty they have not claimed or given
evidence of is not.
> >
> > No, I do not believe that is what is going on. Actually real
> > slander is being done and the quotes are misplaced. [To] Point
> > out that it is slander to call any of us a "war criminal" and
> > so on is not in the least on the same level as using those
> > terms against those who oppose some of this country's recent
> > actions.
>
> "War criminal?" I'm sorry, but do you have a reference of someone
> on this list being called a "war criminal"? I can't find one.
>
I do have better things to do than pretend that your pretending that things
are better here than they are is a reasonable position. I was referring to
what was mentioned just a few posts ago but I haven't the time now to dig it
up again.
> Anyway, you are absolutely right that to call someone a war criminal
> would qualify as slanderous because the meaning is so concrete, and
> cannot be dismissed.
>
Good. A point of agreement.
> > In this country it is also not a matter of debate whether simply
> > disagreeing with the actions of the government and saying so makes
> > one anti_US or unpatriotic much less a "traitor". The freedom to
> > do so is one of the defining principles of this country.
>
> Absolutely. But in time of war (as in March), the specific meaning
> of traitor ("giving aid and comfort to a nation's enemy", see the
> definition of "treason") makes this less clear.
>
It is not legally or constitutionally "a time of war" AND there is nothing in
the constitution that claims one loses the right to criticize the government
in a real time of war or that it is traitorous to do so. If you believe
otherwise then plese quote the precise section. If it is treason to say the
truth as I see it then let them come for me!
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 00:32:07 MDT