User talk:Tmtoulouse/defamation

Somewhere in there should be a discussion of the difference between a public figure, a limited purpose public figure and a private person. I couldn't figure out the best place to put the section. --Leotardo (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and forth on this issue, its an important legal distinction but how important is it in terms of a style guide? We should avoid defamation even if we could defend it on a public figure ground. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a clear understanding of what defamation is then attempts to tell people how to avoid it aren't useful. The United States has the most liberal free speech laws in the world, which includes mocking people, using extreme language to denigrate someone’s views and name calling.  What you can say and who you can say it about form the very basis of this page, so I don't know why you would not address them.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing though, if something is defamatory if you say it about your neighbor, but not defamatory if you say it about Obama it doesn't meant that it belongs in the article about Obama. Chances are that if it would be defamatory in any context other than a public figure its poor writing and should be altered regardless. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're giving bad advice, Trent. This sentence is simply not true: "Do not say that someone is a "fraud", "criminal", or "quack" unless there is a strong external source to back up the claim"  That's not defamation.  Your conflating what you want RationalWiki's standards of discourse to be with what can legally be done.  I could call you any and all of those things and you would have no legal recourse.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is true you can call them whatever you want. If it is true there should be sources. If it is not true then it would be defamatory. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I say, "That quack Terry Hurlbut" you want a source? I could call my neighbor a quack publicly as much as I could call Terry Hurlbut one.  But okay, if you want to restrict protected free speech on RationalWiki you should be putting it under the RationalWiki community standards and not under the banner of defamation, which is a legal term.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quack is the only iffy word choice there since it might fall under the "opinion" category. But things like pedophile, fraud, criminal, murder, terrorist, suicide bomber, etc. would all be defamatory unless they were true. You can not go around calling your neighbor a pedophile and not be legally liable for it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but I could call him a fraud, criminal or terrorist, because these things are matters of opinion. "I think he's a criminal" is protected free speech.  Bernard Madoff did not murder Rene-Thierry de la Villehuchet, but his widow can still say, "I think he's a murderer".  OJ Simpson's ghostwriter:  "I still think he's a murderer" - but Simpson was acquitted!  You are writing legal arguments that aren't correct, and frankly I'm surprised that you of all people would be doing so, particularly when people with legal backgrounds offered to help.  I'll bow out, but I can tell you that if you expect to restrict protected free speech on talk pages or whatever, you're going to lose contributors.  That holds especially true when you couch community standards as legal standards, when they are not.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of your examples are public figures, include "opinion language" such as "I think" or would fall under "substantial truth" doctrine where things don't have to be completely accurate (OJ was convicted in a civil case, etc.) Context also is key. Usually in the context of RationalWiki referring to someone as a criminal or fraud is likely to be connected to a statement about their business or livelihood. Statements that can damage a persons livelihood, and are false, are often defamatory per say.


 * Frankly you need to chill out here too. You have been accusatory and snippy from the get go. This is a fucking style guide in my user page space and your all ready assuming I am shutting down free speech rights on user talk pages. Gee, maybe the fact that I have a specific section for talk pages might clue you in that your over reaching? Or the several statements about how what I have written so far is for articles only? You also jump in with grandiose statements that I am wrong, giving legal advice, and that you know better than I do. When it is likely an issue of more subtle points as I addressed above. And you know the reason I am doing it? Because no one else fucking will, legal background or not. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I specifically offered to help you on my talk page, on your talk page, and in the introduction to this thread. I gave you my e-mail, so saying "no one else fucking will" isn't true.  Nutty Roux actually e-mailed and spoke on the phone about the topic.  Sorry if I sound snippy, but if I wrote something about pathologies and filled it with my own ideas of what constitutes "crazy talk" you might be annoyed as well, especially if you offered to help. Quack is the same thing as fraud. --Leotardo (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)