Belief versus Expression
Oct. 5th, 2024 08:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
steepholmThis 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?
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?
disclaimer: IANAL
Date: 2024-10-06 12:17 am (UTC)In the US, people can use that tactic, although courts tend not to be idiots about people using it as a "get out of judgement free" card. That is, "JKR is a shitty, vile transphobe who is happily throwing cis women under the bus as long as it feels like she's hurting trans women" is a statement of opinion in a US court, whether you say "I believe" or not. Same with "Suella Braverman's a racist, xenophobic twit". Meanwhile "I believe the story that David Cameron fucked a dead pig on October 4th, at 2PM" is more wobbly, even with the "I believe", because there's an implication that I have receipts. Probably depends on the context, honestly; am I making allegations alongside my lawyer, or just talking on social media. (Since Cameron's a public figure he's almost impossible to defame in the US, but that's a different factor.)
I can say all those and I can be grateful that the US does this one thing pretty well.
(I'm not actually sure I can safely say all those things, TBH. Since I'm dual-national and more importantly I'm in the country frequently, it's probably not as safe as I want it to be, despite the SPEECH Act. Buy Imma gonna.)
Re: disclaimer: IANAL
Date: 2024-10-06 03:37 pm (UTC)