Belief versus Expression

[steepholm]

This is a question that has long bothered me, but not enough to research the answer.

Let's say you live in a country with strong libel or hate-speech laws. If you write, for example, "X is a racist", and X has the resources to take matters further, you may well find yourself on the wrong end of a libel suit.

But, there is no law against having particular beliefs or thoughts. You're still allowed to believe that X is a racist, even if you can't write "X is a racist" in a newspaper without getting sued.

So, what about writing the sentence "I believe that X is a racist"?

It's a factual statement, and the fact that it reports on is unactionable (because it's a belief, not a statement). So, why do I get the feeling that X might still sue, and win?

Or, if X wouldn't win, why don't people use the tactic of prepending "I believe" (or equivalent) to every otherwise-actionable statement all the time, like some legal version of Simon Says?

I assume this is a matter that has already been well trodden by lawyers, and maybe philosophers too (phrases like "use-mention distinction" and "performative language" are going through my head even now), but what conclusion have they come to?

Comments

[calimac]

This sort of reminds me:

In the commie-hunting days in the US, accused persons were allowed to refuse to answer questions about their political affiliation on the standing of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. But if they answered any relevant question, they were held to have forfeited their Fifth Amendment rights and had to answer all other questions. There were attempts to refuse to answer questions on First Amendment grounds, that the right to free speech also included the right not to speak, but the courts disallowed that arguments.

So I wondered why nobody tried the tactic from an old Frank R. Stockton story about a man conversing with a sphinx, and wishing to avoid the risk that anything the sphinx might ask him would be a riddle, replied to anything by saying "I give it up. But I don't mind telling you, purely on my own volition and not in answer to any question, that ..." and then he'd continue the conversation.

[jadelennox]

But if they answered any relevant question, they were held to have forfeited their Fifth Amendment rights and had to answer all other questions.

That is still true, I believe, per multiple SCOTUS opinions.

That's why it's always shut the fuck up friday.

So I wondered why nobody tried the tactic from an old Frank R. Stockton story about a man conversing with a sphinx

Because the courts will hold against you if you do that. A US judge is not going to be stymied by this One Cool Trick to protect your rights, because they never have.