Asher -
Hmm... you were talking about bias?
Tingkai -
I believe it is wrt slander and I'm not really sure how slander is different than libel. Malice has to be shown and that makes it much more difficult, so much so libel/slander cases are rather rare in the US. The last one to make headlines was Oprah's show indicting beef and she was sued by the cattle/beef assoc...she won her case down in Texas.
Yikes, that standard is a hazard to free speech IMO. Just saying someone is a homosexual could do that within many communities.
I'd agree with that since the damage is self-evident, most libel cases are brought for economic damage like the Oprah suit. But here malice would have to be a factor so that honest mistakes can be made without lawsuits being filed and won.
If reason is the standard, is it reasonable to reach such a conclusion about all homosexuals? You see, comments (including jokes) about the Catholic Church and pedophilism could be construed as "hate" speech based on such generalisations. That's the problem with expanding libel laws protecting individuals to "hate crime" laws protecting groups since the use of generalisations is so common.
Obiwan's story is from the perspective of someone very religious and very devout in his pro-life beliefs, don't believe he's telling you the unbiased story of what happened.
Plus intent is also a matter: In the "holocaust" example, they are historical records with historical value. Showing dead fetuses as part of a pro-life booth is simply bad taste, vulgar, and purely political.
Tingkai -
Is proof of malicious intent required under US libel law? It's not required in Canada.
The Canadian law merely looks at whether it is reasonable to conclude that a statement might lower a person's standing within a community. There is no requirement to prove that specific damage has occurred.
So if someone says John is a paedaphile, he does not have to prove that this has damaged his reputation.
But libel laws do not cover a case where groups are named instead of individuals, even though saying "homosexuals are all paedaphiles" can be just as damaging as saying "John is a paedaphile." That's why we need laws against hate speech.
Comment