Again. There are no defamatory statements until a court has made a judgement. There may be potentially defamatory statement. I might think something is defamatory. You might think that. But until tested in court they are just statements.
-
-
Replying to @MFnP @supersarr and
"There are no murders unless a court has made a judgment."


Again. Courts punish defamatory statements. The statements are defamatory independent of the courts.2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @Azuaron @supersarr and
Weird non sequitur. But in essence not 100% wrong. Which is why in England we have unlawful killing verdicts in the coroner’s courts, as well as a specific crime of manslaughter. The evidence is tested. However the relevance to defamation is tenuous to say the least
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The idea that no crime is committed until the court decides it is actually beyond horrible. For example, the idea that marital rape really isn't rape when the law says it isn't is, well pretty evil.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
There's different levels of legal realism Like, there's the statutory level, and the argument over whether it makes sense to argue that something "objectively is" a crime (or "objectively should be" a crime, not quite the same thing) when the law clearly says it isn't
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
There's very few people who would say that the law as it is perfectly reflects the law as it should be (or there'd be no need for lawmakers)
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Whether that means the law-as-it-should-be "exists" (and it's meaningful to say "It was a crime even though it was legal") is this philosophical thing
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
What FnP is arguing, about legal realism on the case-by-case level -- objectively speaking there is no individual crime until you've been convicted of it -- is very disturbing to me on a different level
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Which is why I said the relevance of murder to defamation is tenuous at best. Philosophically it’s interesting but that’s about it. Practically the conflation of criminal law with civil law isn’t that illuminating.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Uh, no, in both cases either something actually happened or it didn't, both things are statements about the real world All court judgments, ideally, should be statements about the real world and things that actually happened, it doesn't matter whether it's civil or criminal
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes
"Ideally", of course, being the key term As someone who rejects fluffy idealism I'm sure you're just fine with the idea that the lower burden of proof in civil trials means Ms. Rowling should be able to extract apologies from anyone who pisses her off because judges like her
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
I mean yeah in one sense talking shit about JKR as this act of rebellion is pointless because I live in the US and I'm covered by the First Amendment and the 2010 SPEECH Act so it proves nothing legally that she doesn't try to sue me
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
But as an idealist to some degree it offends the fuck out of me that her shitty fans get to point to her critics' coerced abjection and apologies as *evidence she was actually morally in the right* It's viscerally offensive as fuck to watch them say that
1 reply 6 retweets 49 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.