steepholm: (Default)
[personal profile] 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?

(no subject)

Date: 2024-10-05 02:39 pm (UTC)
heleninwales: (Default)
From: [personal profile] heleninwales
I don't know the answer. I suspect it wouldn't be a defence in the UK. However, a slight variation of this is a tactic Trump uses a lot. He'll post a statement on the lines of: "Many people are saying that....[insert outrageous statement here]." Would that work here as a way of posting defamatory statements? Again, possibly not if the person being mentioned has lots of money. One might be asked to show to the court who these people are.

Profile

steepholm: (Default)
steepholm

August 2025

S M T W T F S
     12
34 56789
1011 1213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags