(January 19, 2012 at 2:41 am)Shell B Wrote: Defamation has to be proven to have caused harm (not emotional) to be considered a viable claim.
Harm to one's honor (which is emotional) is basis enough for a defamation suit. As such emotional harm is already illegal, that means freedom of speech is already limited.
Quote:I find that law ridiculous. I cannot stand Holocaust deniers. I still don't think they should have to hide their thoughts.
Well the worry is that by letting them spread their venom some impressionable kids would fall for them. I should know, my own brother seems to be going down that path (which is quite a worry).
And also it stems from the idea that denying it is an insult to the country's history, as in the country itself and every citizen within it, so it makes sense the state, a representative of the people, would forbid something that the common will of the people wants forbidden.
Quote:I wouldn't limit possibilities based on the limits of prudes.
It's not a matter of prudes ! Take gay kids that are called "faggots", told they are going to hell, and bullied psychologically, some of them go in deep depression or worse without physical harm done to them, it's not that they are prudes, it's that insults hurt. There are anti-bullying laws, should those be unconstitutional as well ?
Quote:In the legal sense, yes. That is not to say someone will not punch you in your dumb face for it.
You can choose to be damaged by words. It's much more difficult to dodge a punch.
I disagree that you can choose to be damaged by words. We all are affected by words, and it's much more difficult to ignore what people say about you than dodging a punch.
It seems strange to punish physical, temporary, superficial harm and not emotional harm which is much, much more dangerous.
