Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Katrina Oniseki]

Holy shit, Nico. Dem poasts.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Holy shit, Nico. Dem poasts.

Haven't had interwubs for three days, had to catch up. <,<

[Kala]

I qualified that P needs to be such that it is injurious to the reputation of said concept of God.

Ok, and I said I thought some people would be upset at the idea that their God or religion are thought of as patriarchal and misogynistic. I suspect some may well consider it injurious to the reputation of said concept of God to suggest that.

Would being injurious to the reputation of said concept of God, and worshippers of said concept of God finding it injurious, not be the same in this context?

(Or would that come down to having to prove it was injurious as you stated elsewhere, like loss of income etc?)

Not necessarily false, though - as having that opinion (and stating it publicly) may not conflict with actual doctrine (as long as your reasons came from the bible etc). Though having that stance on it at all could be claimed to be a misrepresentation.

(Though all hypothetical)

Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false.

Well, that's precisely where this is troublesome, for me.  As an opinion phrased as statement of fact is...still just an opinion (just more directly phrased without caveats or disclaimers).

Seems like it would be ok, as long as your opinion wasn't too specific and/or directed.  Which might be awkward waters to tread.

I think that is quite the optimistic outlook on laws.

Heh, maybe.  I don't get accused of optimism too often Probably more a lack of knowledge on laws (IANAL)
But what I mean is, it's not just judging an action here (which could be said to have broken the law or not, and then seeing, case by case, whether it's in the spirit of the law) but having to first interpret someone's words (which could have a variety of different meanings) to determine whether it was false, malicious or in good faith.
It's not a call I'd like to make at any rate.* 


(*aside from hate speech, which seems like it would be far more obvious)

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Answering your post, Kala, in inverse order:

--

Well, see, most actions aren't so clearly cut either. Someone steals something. Is he/she guilty of theft? What if he steals under compulsion? What if he is a cleptomaniac?

Someone bumps a parking car, looks at the car he bumped into and  then leaves the scene without informing the police or anyone else. Hit and run accident? Maybe he didn't notice the damage he had done, maybe he was unsure about whether he hit the other car at all?

In general, most crimes are really only crimes if they were done intentionally. But one can rarely see the intentional state of someone acting.

-

The problem with opinions stated as fact is that they are still stated as fact. If you get into the territory where you are treading the waters of defamation if you state facts, it is probably negligence on your part if you don't make clear that you state an opinion rather than a fact.

Yes there are 'workarounds' if you state your opinion as fact but kind'a unspecific and undirected or what you consider to be fact as kind of an opinion (e.g. Dawkins statement on the God of the Old Testament in a book where he puts a disclaimer at the start declaring that he isn't dealing with sophisticated forms of Christianity anyway). I wouldn't say, though, that this is OK, it's merely just out of the area where the lawsuit reach you. It's a space left by old roman rule 'in dubio pro leo'... ah 'reo'.

-

That someone feels offended by a statement doesn't mean it injures the reputation. That means it is not about injury to feelings. Also, indeed the one filing the lawsuit has to prove that the statement they file against has at least the potential to hurt the reputation in question. Yes, that can mean that people who heard (and believed) the defaming statement would be less friendly to someone publicly professing that belief.

Also, I'd say the characterization of the Christian God as misogynistic is in direct conflict with the Christian doctrine that God is most perfect. So, unless you want to claim that misogynism is some kind of perfection... (all speaking in hypotheticals, ofc)

[Kala]

Well, see, most actions aren't so clearly cut either. Someone steals something. Is he/she guilty of theft? What if he steals under compulsion? What if he is a cleptomaniac?

Someone bumps a parking car, looks at the car he bumped into and  then leaves the scene without informing the police or anyone else. Hit and run accident? Maybe he didn't notice the damage he had done, maybe he was unsure about whether he hit the other car at all?

In general, most crimes are really only crimes if they were done intentionally. But one can rarely see the intentional state of someone acting.

Well, you can establish if the action broke the law or not.  Someone who steals something is guilty of theft. Someone bumping a park car, looks at it, and then drives away is culpable. That there were mitigating circumstances can then be looked at (ok, he did break the law here, but it might be a different case here, because of this) with the whole to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law thing.

The thing that comes to my mind is the concept of statutory rape, which I always took as being intended to protect vulnerable younger people from adults abusing their power to coerce them into sex they weren't ready for.   Two young people very much in love, one just below the age of consent and one just above, is not really what that law is getting at.  But to the letter of it, the slightly older one would be guilty. By the spirit of it, they wouldn't.

Same with a case a while back, where a teenager was accused of disseminating child porn, because he was emailing back and forth with his girlfriend, including naughty photos of them.  The spirit of that law is not meant to target young couples exchanging personal pictures of their relationship.  But to the letter of the law, it could be claimed that emails could reach people who were not the intended recipient, and that if one was above the age of consent and one below then they could be seen as a child.

I'm not trying to say it's entirely cut and dry.  But my point being, it seems like we can (for the most part) say an action is breaking the law (to the letter of it).  You can then look at it with context and circumstances and establish that, while it's breaking the law, that was not what that law was intended to be applied to (and set a precedent or use an already established one in that scenario).

Opinions and arguments are trickier as you have to interpret meaning before you can decide if they broke the law.  I mean, it's all subjective, as you point out. It's just this seems significantly more subjective to me.

The problem with opinions stated as fact is that they are still stated as fact. If you get into the territory where you are treading the waters of defamation if you state facts, it is probably negligence on your part if you don't make clear that you state an opinion rather than a fact.

Yes there are 'workarounds' if you state your opinion as fact but kind'a unspecific and undirected or what you consider to be fact as kind of an opinion (e.g. Dawkins statement on the God of the Old Testament in a book where he puts a disclaimer at the start declaring that he isn't dealing with sophisticated forms of Christianity anyway). I wouldn't say, though, that this is OK, it's merely just out of the area where the lawsuit reach you. It's a space left by old roman rule 'in dubio pro leo'... ah 'reo'.

When people are stating their opinions, they're not going to be litigious about it, and think, I must phrase this carefully in case it comes up in court.  They'll just say what they think.

I don't really see it as a loophole or deliberately skirting to do that.  Just seems like you may run afoul of defamation/slander if you direct what you're saying at a specific group and what they believe (Christians, for our purposes then) don't put an obligatory "I think this" in front of it, if it was then recorded publicly (or tweeted) and people saw who then were influenced and treated people differently based on that opinion (which at that point is somewhat out of your hands).

(Whereas if you happened to be more vague, and more tentative in your assertions you'd probably be fine.  But if someone's debate style is penalized over another's, that doesn't seem like a solid basis)

Also if there's a responsibility for people to ensure that they have fully researched the things influencing their argument before making them (which I agree in an ideal world there should be), and phrasing it so people understand it's debatable (less forceful) shouldn't there also be a responsibility for the people then reading and influenced by this (causing the reputation damage) to interrogate that opinion before adopting it themselves or treating anyone differently because of it?

Also, I'd say the characterization of the Christian God as misogynistic is in direct conflict with the Christian doctrine that God is most perfect. So, unless you want to claim that misogynism is some kind of perfection... (all speaking in hypotheticals, ofc)

It would be completely fair enough to say that, while some things in the bible may be misogynistic, that doesn't reflect on God in any way, as that's man's flawed interpretation.  Or taking the view that God speaks to your heart, not from the bible or the Church (and is kind of more of a one-on-one relationship).

But perhaps less so when people suggest the bible is the word of God and literal truth (rather than parable) - then and now, alongside the idea that God is infallible.  (In which case, you may have to equate misogyny with perfection if you accepted the assertion).

So depends on the stance of the believer(s) being defamed, really.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Just to note: Perfection is a subjective concept and what is 'perfect' varys from person to person and society to society, and because of this the claims "God is perfect" and "God is a misogynist" do not necessarily conflict, since it is entirely possible to view Misogyny as a valid and perfect opinion in and of itself.

We don't anymore because we now live in what is ostensibly an enlightened society and we have left behind certain of our stone age traditions, or at least are in the transitioning period away from these things.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

As I said, Tiberious, the are not compatible unless you see misogynism as a kind of perfection... Do you wan to say that it is?

That said, I'm quite sure that modern Christianity doesn't see misogyny as a perfection, and as we're not talking defaming hypothetical concepts of God, but actual ones, I think you'd have a rather hard time arguing that contemporary Christians think of misogyny as a perfection.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

No, I am saying that perfection is an inherently mutable standard and that therefore unless your God is also mutable then describing Him as perfect is inherently flawed.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Also, as perfection is mutable you have to also consider the point of view of All Christians, including those sects that HAVE been misogynistic, and also described their God as perfect and unchanging.  There is clearly a logical flaw here.  It is a much safer and morally correct point of view to make correct moral and ethical decisions and to hold to moral and ethical philosophies that come from things we can actually understand, rather than things that are beyond Human Conception.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Well, you can establish if the action broke the law or not.  Someone who steals something is guilty of theft. Someone bumping a park car, looks at it, and then drives away is culpable. That there were mitigating circumstances can then be looked at (ok, he did break the law here, but it might be a different case here, because of this) with the whole to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law thing.

Actually, no: if you bump a parking car, look at it, and then drive away, you are not culpable of hit and run if, for example, you were under shock and didn't just realize that the other car was damaged. As hit-and-run presupposes that you knowingly left the scene of an accident.

You might be still 'culpable' in a way in so far as you're liable for the damage, but not in the sense of having comitted a crime. Crimes, in general, presuppose some level of intention, as I said. If there was no intention to commit said crime whatsoever you are neither culpablenor did you even commit the crime or broke a law. At least that's how it is in germany. Dunno about the US law, really. But I'd wonder if they would hold someone culpable of deciding to run from the accident scene if he didn't know that he was on one - nor could have known as he was under shock. Because that decision presupposes that he knew.

I'm not trying to say it's entirely cut and dry.  But my point being, it seems like we can (for the most part) say an action is breaking the law (to the letter of it).  You can then look at it with context and circumstances and establish that, while it's breaking the law, that was not what that law was intended to be applied to (and set a precedent or use an already established one in that scenario).

The problem here is that this only applies to laws that outlaw mere 'doings'. Most laws  are against crimes, though. Crimes are not mere doings they are specific kinds of actions. Thus, to have comitted a crime, you must be culpable. Looking that up in wikipedia,put shortly the US law defines several levels of culpability:

• A person causes a result purposely if the result is his/her goal in doing the action that causes it,
• A person causes a result knowingly if he/she knows that the result is virtually certain to occur from the action he/she undertakes,
• A person causes a result recklessly if he/she is aware of and disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the result occurring from the action, and
• A person causes a result negligently if there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk he/she is unaware of but should be aware of.

So, a person that didn't intend a certain reult, nor did know of that result being caused by his doings and e.g. was in a state where he couldn't be (and thus shouldn't have been) aware of the result of his actions can't be culpable and thus can't commit a crime.

To quote Wikipedia: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged."

The thing about the mens rea isn't as trivial as some observable action/doing. This is really opening a world of incertainty and discussions of how to determine whether there is a mens rea and to what level.

Opinions and arguments are trickier as you have to interpret meaning before you can decide if they broke the law.  I mean, it's all subjective, as you point out. It's just this seems significantly more subjective to me.

As you see the problem is that with other laws, you have to interprete the meaning of doings/actions and the retellings of those doings in regard to establishing whether there's a mens rea. That is all quite significantly subjective. I can't see the vast gap here you seem to see, with the exception of those cases where laws merely regulate liability.

When people are stating their opinions, they're not going to be litigious about it, and think, I must phrase this carefully in case it comes up in court.  They'll just say what they think.

I don't really see it as a loophole or deliberately skirting to do that.  Just seems like you may run afoul of defamation/slander if you direct what you're saying at a specific group and what they believe (Christians, for our purposes then) don't put an obligatory "I think this" in front of it, if it was then recorded publicly (or tweeted) and people saw who then were influenced and treated people differently based on that opinion (which at that point is somewhat out of your hands).

(Whereas if you happened to be more vague, and more tentative in your assertions you'd probably be fine.  But if someone's debate style is penalized over another's, that doesn't seem like a solid basis)

Also if there's a responsibility for people to ensure that they have fully researched the things influencing their argument before making them (which I agree in an ideal world there should be), and phrasing it so people understand it's debatable (less forceful) shouldn't there also be a responsibility for the people then reading and influenced by this (causing the reputation damage) to interrogate that opinion before adopting it themselves or treating anyone differently because of it?

Well, phrasing is quite important. If you speak publicly you're under special responsibility to phrase what you say carefully. If you fail to do so, and it is due to negligence of your responsibilities to phrase carefully, then, well, yes you are culpable. (You see, this is the question of the mens rea, just as in other cases of determining culpability. See above.)

And sure, people are also responsible to check what you said. Doesn't mean that you're relieved of your responsibility to phrase your words thoughtfully in the first place, though.

It all boils down to the following:

Did you say something false that damaged the reputation of a world view? If yes, the actus rea is established. Not much more room for interpretation here than in a case where it's hard to determine whether someone had a financial loss because of some action of yours.

Now the hard part: What about the mens rea? Hard to determine regardless of the case at hand, really.

It would be completely fair enough to say that, while some things in the bible may be misogynistic, that doesn't reflect on God in any way, as that's man's flawed interpretation.  Or taking the view that God speaks to your heart, not from the bible or the Church (and is kind of more of a one-on-one relationship).

But perhaps less so when people suggest the bible is the word of God and literal truth (rather than parable) - then and now, alongside the idea that God is infallible.  (In which case, you may have to equate misogyny with perfection if you accepted the assertion).

So depends on the stance of the believer(s) being defamed, really.

That's why, speaking about the majority of Christians worldwide, the idea that Scripture should be taken literally, is a minority position. Already Augustinus (http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/30/augustine-hippo-literal-meaning-genesis) said explicitly that it shouldn't. Before him the Church fathers didn't take the Scripture literal, faithful to the interpretation scheme devised to be applied to Scripture by the jewish authors of the Tanach. That's among other things because they knew about differences in text by version & language which have already been systematically explored as early as Origen with his Hexapla.

Literalism nowadays is really mainly a remnant of the protestant movement, placing the bible in translation into the hands of simple people without educating them in regard to biblical exegesis. Something that the Protestants distanced themselves from in the majority with the development of historical criticism in biblical interpretation.

So, yah, if you take the Bible literally as a Christian, you're doing something demonstrably false. But that's not necessarily thinking of God as non-misogynist and most perfect, but migth very well simply be that you - against christian (and prior to that jewish) tradition in writing, editing and understanding biblical texts - take the Bible literally. It's also a mistake most vocal critics of the Abrahamitic religions make. Taking a book literally that never was even meant to be, then showing that those literal interpretations are self-contradicting (and perhaps painting a grim picture).

I could go on about all that, but it should be clear one you look farther than the US bible belt, that literalism is really only a thing with a minority of Christian denominations. And all that'd really be a topic for another thread.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

No, I am saying that perfection is an inherently mutable standard and that therefore unless your God is also mutable then describing Him as perfect is inherently flawed.

Christians would agree that all human descriptions of God are inherently flawed. Also, one can arguably say that not perfection is a mutable standard, but that what is mutable is what we percieve perfection to consist in. Or do you want to say that misogyny is sometimes a perfection and sometimes not?

Also, as perfection is mutable you have to also consider the point of view of All Christians, including those sects that HAVE been misogynistic, and also described their God as perfect and unchanging.  There is clearly a logical flaw here.  It is a much safer and morally correct point of view to make correct moral and ethical decisions and to hold to moral and ethical philosophies that come from things we can actually understand, rather than things that are beyond Human Conception.

Even if a sect has been misogynistic, you'd first have to demonstrate that their concept of God has been misogynistic. You'd have to show for that, that the actions we view to be misogynistic, that have been ascribed by said sects to God, were viewed by those sects as misogynistic.

Now, you'd have a hard time to demonstrate that the philosophers coming from 'things we can actually understand' are somhow 'safer' and 'morally correct'.

And lastly, just as with literalists, you'd have to show that the 'misogynistic perfection Christians' are an extant branch of Christianity of any relevance in number in contemporary Christianity. After all here we ask what defamation laws regulate against and so much is clear: They don't regulate against defaming dead religious communities (as there is no damage to be had), but contemporary ones.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Just so you know, you are using very, very scummy argument tactics here and I have absolutely no fear on calling you out for that.  I'm not saying that Misogyny is a good thing at all, but I -am- saying that there have been times when its been viewed in a positive light.  We live in a hopefully better, more enlightened time now, however...

There are sections of Christianity that are inherently misogynist, or at least in major sects of Christianity.  It is only recently, for instance, that ANY christian sects have allowed women in to their upper ranks.  Catholics still wont, even though I give Pope Francis credit when he says he wants to open up the church to more women... he still doesn't mean administrative or priest roles.  A woman cannot be pope, because she is a woman.  That is inherently misogynist, and yet the Catholics (or at least the Catholic hierarchy) considers it to be a good thing AND a direct command from God.

Some protestant sects have women in their priesthoods, the anglicans, for instance, or the Unitarians.  This is to the good, and obviously their concept of perfection must differ from the Catholics (or else they would not be protestant).

So, there are aspects (major ones even) that view a concept of God that is inherently misogynist.  If God is perfect, then they also consider that aspect of his being to be perfect and to the right (by definition, if we accept that God must be Perfect.. If God is Perfect then everything he does is, also, perfect).

Note, however, that I am not slandering or libeling these groups right now, so that we can bring things back on topic.  I am allowed to say nasty and mean things about these groups because they are opinions.  However, if I was to say, for instance, "The Pope robbed a bank when he was a teen", and spread that as a rumour, THAT would be libel or slander (depending on how and where I said it), because not only do I have no proof, the intention behind me saying it is to defame the Popes good name.  On the other hand if I say "I think bankrobbers are shitheads" then I am not committing libel or slander against the concept of bank robbers or bank robbery.

[Kala]

Actually, no: if you bump a parking car, look at it, and then drive away, you are not culpable of hit and run if, for example, you were under shock and didn't just realize that the other car was damaged. As hit-and-run presupposes that you knowingly left the scene of an accident.

Maybe not, but as you say, you're culpable for the damage committed - it was clearly and undoubtedly you who caused it, and it's clearly you who left the scene.  (It also doesn't look good for you re: 'knowingly left' if you looked at it before driving away).  The issue of being under shock or not realizing is part of the circumstance/context/spirit of the law aspect as I see it that would then mitigate that, and as you say, may mean they ultimately did not commit a crime.

(Pretty sure in the UK you're supposed to get out and swap insurance details, or notify the police there's been an incident afterwards if you can't, but not sure what the penalty is for not doing so).

Those first bits though - that he caused it, that he left can be said to have definitely occurred.  Then the more subjective elements can come in to play (such as intention etc).

What I mean with this being 'more subjective' (which might be a bit of a poor word choice, in retrospect) is that it's more open to interpretation from the start.  You can say that damage was caused to the car, and that person did it. The other person could then mount a defence that they were in shock, or they didn't see it so didn't think anything was wrong, etc.

It's harder to say, in the same way as you can say that damage to the car physically happened and this individual caused it, that a religious group or ideology was slandered/defamed.  One you can provide objective proof of that it happened (a photo of the dent, if you like, or CCTV footage) - but a recording or a transcript of something someone said, or what someone wrote in a book isn't going to be the same level of ...obviousness (well, unless it is really obvious in terms of fabrication or hate speech).  You'd have to interpret,  what it even means before you could even get to the point of what the speaker's intention may have been (malicious or in good faith) whether it was all or entirely fabricated or had valid sources (falsehood) , or whether injury was actually done to the reputation of that group (loss of earnings or whatever).  A photo of a dent fairly obviously means something has been dented. 

(If you like, it seems like the observable action/doing part isn't straightforward before you get to opening a world of uncertainty and discussion of how to determine whether there is a mens rea and to what level.  Because it's not a dent or an item that was in someone's pocket, it's an argument or statement someone has made - and saying definitively what that argument or statement actually is, is perhaps not as straightforward).

Though I get that it's not the statement itself that was equivalent to the dent.  It's more "my car was damaged, I hold you accountable" and "my reputation was damaged by proxy, I hold you accountable" - it's just you can physically prove straight away the car was actually damaged by that person, whether they end up being accountable for it or not.  You can prove the person wrote/spoke the statement, but it might be more up for debate what the statement means.  Just because language and writing seem more loaded with interpretation(s).


A friend suggested that maybe that's why slander/defamation would be civil law rather than criminal (or it is here, anyways).  Because it's harder to establish straight away if a crime may have been committed.

Well, phrasing is quite important. If you speak publicly you're under special responsibility to phrase what you say carefully. If you fail to do so, and it is due to negligence of your responsibilities to phrase carefully, then, well, yes you are culpable. (You see, this is the question of the mens rea, just as in other cases of determining culpability. See above.)

I don't think, for example, that individuals phrase things carefully on the internet. If there is a special responsibility, I think most people ignore it or are unaware of it.
Additionally, you can phrase something quite carefully and it still be misinterpreted - or be open to interpretation.  Language is slippery like that.

And sure, people are also responsible to check what you said. Doesn't mean that you're relieved of your responsibility to phrase your words thoughtfully in the first place, though.

No, it doesn't.  And I can understand it for things like newspapers, who should have more responsibility in their status as providing information.  Individual about a group though? (or not even directly about the group, but an aspect the group identifies strongly with) And then negatively effecting how another individual sees that group? Both may have simply lacked enough critical thinking to make their own minds up and repeated commonly held wisdom.

What I was trying to suggest there was not that one excuses the other, but both could work under the same principle but only one be held accountable.  I was mostly thinking out loud about how we're expected, on the one hand, to think carefully about what we say about a group incase it influences someone's opinion of them, but there's no real...sense of personal responsibility for people to just...not be perpetually credible (i.e use critical thinking and make their own minds up).  I.e the whole thing just seems to...assume people will naturally be easily swayed by whatever you tell them.    (I.e it's damaged the groups reputation not just because of whatever was said, but by how easily others would believe it).

As I said, from a group or organisation that has high status or is meant to be a trusted source, I can understand that.  You would easily believe it.  But...just an ordinary private individual? Eh...

Did you say something false that damaged the reputation of a world view? If yes, the actus rea is established. Not much more room for interpretation here than in a case where it's hard to determine whether someone had a financial loss because of some action of yours.

Now the hard part: What about the mens rea? Hard to determine regardless of the case at hand, really.

Ok, but I'd say establishing that initial 'yes' to 'did you say something false that damaged the reputation of a world view' might not be straightforward - depending on whether they actually said something demonstrably and obviously false (i.e completely wrong) or was opinion, part opinion part fact, or a debatable 'truth',  before getting onto intention, tone, phrasing, context etc.

I think it would be easier if it was about an individual (though not necessarily straightforward, depending) but "this God is this" is going to automatically mean a debate on theology (or whatever world view if not religious) to establish falsehood rather than something like "she did this" "no she didn't, she wasn't there" - isn't it?

That's why, speaking about the majority of Christians worldwide, the idea that Scripture should be taken literally, is a minority position. Already Augustinus (http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/01/30/augustine-hippo-literal-meaning-genesis) said explicitly that it shouldn't. Before him the Church fathers didn't take the Scripture literal, faithful to the interpretation scheme devised to be applied to Scripture by the jewish authors of the Tanach. That's among other things because they knew about differences in text by version & language which have already been systematically explored as early as Origen with his Hexapla.

Literalism nowadays is really mainly a remnant of the protestant movement, placing the bible in translation into the hands of simple people without educating them in regard to biblical exegesis. Something that the Protestants distanced themselves from in the majority with the development of historical criticism in biblical interpretation.

So, yah, if you take the Bible literally as a Christian, you're doing something demonstrably false. But that's not necessarily thinking of God as non-misogynist and most perfect, but migth very well simply be that you - against christian (and prior to that jewish) tradition in writing, editing and understanding biblical texts - take the Bible literally. It's also a mistake most vocal critics of the Abrahamitic religions make. Taking a book literally that never was even meant to be, then showing that those literal interpretations are self-contradicting (and perhaps painting a grim picture).

I could go on about all that, but it should be clear one you look farther than the US bible belt, that literalism is really only a thing with a minority of Christian denominations. And all that'd really be a topic for another thread.

That's why I said it would depend on the believer(s) being defamed, and what stance they took on things 

Whether it's a majority or not globally probably isn't going to matter it does happen to be someone from the US bible belt who has taken umbrage at your accusation.  If they then say it's false, because everything in the bible should be followed (and you'd already end up with a heap of contradictions, so I suspect you'd choose the ones you'd want to follow in that scenario!) but also simultaneously believe God is Love - then God doesn't hate women. Then you could cite something from the bible that is, um, unenlightened:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

And then they could, presumably say, well - it doesn't mean God hates women.  Just that women should just shut up and quietly pop out babies (because Eve).  Then they're worthy of love by God.

Or somesuch.  (and I'd be like, but that IS misogyny! and they'd be like, no it's not! It's the natural order!) etc. In the hypothetical argument I could have with myself.


Elton John has recently said something along the lines of Jesus would be cool with the gays if he did returneth.  I expect that wouldn't go down well too someone who felt their religion justified the statement 'God hates fags' (still in the global minority bible belt, in the further minority of Westboro )

But would that very statement then be defamation to other Christians who felt, that actually, their God didn't hate fags?  And it would be harming the reputation of Christians who don't want to be seen as homophobes by worshipping a homophobic God? (apart from the trouble in proving "The Christian (my) God hates fags" seems similar to proving " The Christian (your) God is misogynistic" as false)

Though conceivably, even within the bracket heading of Christianity, and under the other branches of denominations and sub-denominations, still maybe people have their own God within that.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now, last time I checked mysogyny was the hate of or dislike for women. Yes, the catholic church discriminates against women in regard to being part of the priesthood, but I don't think that is because of a dislike or hatred of women. It is simply because of tradition. And that tradition didn't arise out of misogyny either, but out of a historical understanding of the roles of man and women and a division of tasks between the two.

Yes, that has lead to misogynist attitudes amongst catholic Christians at times, but in fact Christianity has had a rather pro-women attitude in the time of it's formation and I'd argue up to today. You see that by the broad adoption of feminist theology among all major Christian edenominations. In many respects Christianity allowed women in late antiquity to escape a lifetime in service within the household, offering them the choice of living in a monastery or as Virgo consecrata.

Similarly as women are barred from ordained priesthood, men are barred in Christianity from becoming Virgines consacratae. That's not because Christians hate men. Even in protestant denominations men can't become holy maidens.

So, no, Christianity doesn't view God as misogynist at all, not even the catholic Church with their strict prohibition to women becoming priests. Rather, through Maria, they have a high opinion of women, even though they adhere to a somewhat strict model of the roles of men and women have to fulfill. This goes both ways. One can criticise that, for sure, it is, though, something that's different from being misogynist.

So, what is really happening here is that you're of the opinion that the catholics are misogynist, because they don't let women become Priests. That is to say, you are assuming they must hate or dislike women in some way to barr them from becoming priests. But that's not the case. Treating people differently doesn't imply hatred of the groups you treat differently. It is a fallacy to assume that because you treat a group different, if you hate or dislike it (and even that premise isn't necessarily true), that the inverse must be true.

So, just so you know, what you do there seems to be very, very scummy argument tactics to me - as it doesn't follow at all that you have to hate or dislike someone because you barr them from a certain profession. There can be other reasons.

Also, by the way, misogyny has been seen as largely a negative thing since it was mentioned and debated in antiquity by philosphers. Very few people argued that hate and/or dislike of women is justified, and that's true inside as well as outside of Christianity.

And yah, I already noted that expression of opinions isn't libel or slander or any sort of defamation at all, Tiberious.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Maybe not, but as you say, you're culpable for the damage committed - it was clearly and undoubtedly you who caused it, and it's clearly you who left the scene.  (It also doesn't look good for you re: 'knowingly left' if you looked at it before driving away).  The issue of being under shock or not realizing is part of the circumstance/context/spirit of the law aspect as I see it that would then mitigate that, and as you say, may mean they ultimately did not commit a crime.

No o9ne isn't culpable for damage - one is liable. Also, yes, if one looked at the car one bumped again, it doesn't look good for one, but that's because it's assumed that if you looked at it and there is a damage on it, you should've seen it. The shock part isn't just something that is part of a 'circumstance/context/spirit of the law aspect' it is quite the  important point about the mens rea which really is necessaery to constitute a crime.

(Pretty sure in the UK you're supposed to get out and swap insurance details, or notify the police there's been an incident afterwards if you can't, but not sure what the penalty is for not doing so).

Yes, you are supposed to.

Those first bits though - that he caused it, that he left can be said to have definitely occurred.  Then the more subjective elements can come in to play (such as intention etc).

What I mean with this being 'more subjective' (which might be a bit of a poor word choice, in retrospect) is that it's more open to interpretation from the start.  You can say that damage was caused to the car, and that person did it. The other person could then mount a defence that they were in shock, or they didn't see it so didn't think anything was wrong, etc.

this first thing, the actus can only be considered as a criminal act if there is also the 'subjective' part of the mens rea fulfilled. The 'defense' about the shock is an integral part of whether one comitted a crime or not, not how badly one did commit a crime or no.

It's harder to say, in the same way as you can say that damage to the car physically happened and this individual caused it, that a religious group or ideology was slandered/defamed.  One you can provide objective proof of that it happened (a photo of the dent, if you like, or CCTV footage) - but a recording or a transcript of something someone said, or what someone wrote in a book isn't going to be the same level of ...obviousness (well, unless it is really obvious in terms of fabrication or hate speech).  You'd have to interpret,  what it even means before you could even get to the point of what the speaker's intention may have been (malicious or in good faith) whether it was all or entirely fabricated or had valid sources (falsehood) , or whether injury was actually done to the reputation of that group (loss of earnings or whatever).  A photo of a dent fairly obviously means something has been dented.

In the case of the dent you'd have to ask whether the dent was there previously, you have to decide whether it's actual damage (in the sense of the law) or not (which is nowadays usually determined by estimating the price of repair), you'd have to question the witnesses, compare what they said. Put shortly, you've to interprete the case at hand as well. There are cases where it's more obvious and some where it's less. That's nothing that arises merely by the nature of defamation being in speech. Actually in the case of defamation you don't have to do more interpretation, all you have to ask, in regard to the actus is: Was it said publicly? Is it a false statement? Does it damage the reputation (which is, really, is there at least one probable interpretation that is damaging)?

All that follows are questions to the mens rea.

(If you like, it seems like the observable action/doing part isn't straightforward before you get to opening a world of uncertainty and discussion of how to determine whether there is a mens rea and to what level.  Because it's not a dent or an item that was in someone's pocket, it's an argument or statement someone has made - and saying definitively what that argument or statement actually is, is perhaps not as straightforward).

A statement, printed or in language, is as much a physical thing/event as a dent being made into a car. Whether a dent being made into a car is an action or a doing or something else is quite up in the air. Also, you don't have to state definitely what the statement is, you just have to determine whether it is a) public, b) false and c) harmful to the reputation. Everything else falls into the question of whether there's a mens rea.

Though I get that it's not the statement itself that was equivalent to the dent.  It's more "my car was damaged, I hold you accountable" and "my reputation was damaged by proxy, I hold you accountable" - it's just you can physically prove straight away the car was actually damaged by that person, whether they end up being accountable for it or not.  You can prove the person wrote/spoke the statement, but it might be more up for debate what the statement means.  Just because language and writing seem more loaded with interpretation(s).

I don't think that it's that easy. In reality you can't, in most cases, 'straight away' prove that a car was damaged by someone or not. And as I said, it's not about what the statement actually meant. Statements have lots of meanings - at least as many (more or less nuanced) as there are people hearing it plus one (the intended meaning of the one issuing it). But that's not what this is up about. So, it doesn't matter that language is more loaded with meaning and thus open to interpretation. All you need to show for the actus is that the three citeria are fulfilled.

A friend suggested that maybe that's why slander/defamation would be civil law rather than criminal (or it is here, anyways).  Because it's harder to establish straight away if a crime may have been committed.

Well, as far as I know in the UK criminal law is about punishing criminal offenders, civil law is about resolving dispute and victim compensation. So, by falling under civil law blasphemy would not be a crime, but simply a civil wrong. But then there would only be the question of liability, not of culpability, as I understand it. <,< And apparently that was the case. Burden of proof was with the defendant and it wasn't about culpability but liability. Seems to have changed with an amendment from 2013. So, there seem to be historical reasons why you place it under 'civil law'.

I don't think, for example, that individuals phrase things carefully on the internet. If there is a special responsibility, I think most people ignore it or are unaware of it.
Additionally, you can phrase something quite carefully and it still be misinterpreted - or be open to interpretation.  Language is slippery like that.

Yah, few people are aware of their special responsibility in regard to public statements on the internet, for various reasons (there are psychological studies on this). Doesn't mean they aren't responsible. It's a hot topic in the 'law community', for those reasons. (You can easily find entire books about this.)
Thing is, if you demonstrably took care to qualify your statements as opinions, then someone might still misinterprete what you said - as indeed language is kind'a open to that. You can eventually force whatever interpretation on a sentance. But then, happenings are open to interpretations in a similar way and you can force misinterpretations on happenings similarly. But if you show the court that you took care to state something as an opinion, then really you're on the safe side, unless you failed miserably. Language is slippery, but not that slippery. In the vast majority of cases it works quite well within the tolerances.

No, it doesn't.  And I can understand it for things like newspapers, who should have more responsibility in their status as providing information.  Individual about a group though? (or not even directly about the group, but an aspect the group identifies strongly with) And then negatively effecting how another individual sees that group? Both may have simply lacked enough critical thinking to make their own minds up and repeated commonly held wisdom.

What I was trying to suggest there was not that one excuses the other, but both could work under the same principle but only one be held accountable.  I was mostly thinking out loud about how we're expected, on the one hand, to think carefully about what we say about a group incase it influences someone's opinion of them, but there's no real...sense of personal responsibility for people to just...not be perpetually credible (i.e use critical thinking and make their own minds up).  I.e the whole thing just seems to...assume people will naturally be easily swayed by whatever you tell them.    (I.e it's damaged the groups reputation not just because of whatever was said, but by how easily others would believe it).

As I said, from a group or organisation that has high status or is meant to be a trusted source, I can understand that.  You would easily believe it.  But...just an ordinary private individual? Eh...

I see your point. Well, yah. If people are swayed by e.g. Dawkins stating an opinion, then he's not responsible if their resulting actions. If he states his opinion as fact and that opinion s factually true, he is responsible for the damage he caused. Regardless of whether they would have done the same if he merely stated an opinion. That's the delineation.

But then there's also that from a newspaper or a researcher there are higher standards expected in checking than from Joe Everybody, ofc. That's mainly in the court's hands.

Ok, but I'd say establishing that initial 'yes' to 'did you say something false that damaged the reputation of a world view' might not be straightforward - depending on whether they actually said something demonstrably and obviously false (i.e completely wrong) or was opinion, part opinion part fact, or a debatable 'truth',  before getting onto intention, tone, phrasing, context etc.

I think it would be easier if it was about an individual (though not necessarily straightforward, depending) but "this God is this" is going to automatically mean a debate on theology (or whatever world view if not religious) to establish falsehood rather than something like "she did this" "no she didn't, she wasn't there" - isn't it?

Again, the debate isn't about "God is this" but about "Religion X's concept of God is this". And there you're often in clear cut territory. E.g. in the case of the catholic concept of God you can easily look into the Katechism, no debate needed. So, no, it's not really much more difficult. If anything, it's easier because you readily find the propositions, while in a normal case you have to trust that the witnesses propositions are according to reality.

That's why I said it would depend on the believer(s) being defamed, and what stance they took on things 

Whether it's a majority or not globally probably isn't going to matter it does happen to be someone from the US bible belt who has taken umbrage at your accusation.  If they then say it's false, because everything in the bible should be followed (and you'd already end up with a heap of contradictions, so I suspect you'd choose the ones you'd want to follow in that scenario!) but also simultaneously believe God is Love - then God doesn't hate women. Then you could cite something from the bible that is, um, unenlightened:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

And then they could, presumably say, well - it doesn't mean God hates women.  Just that women should just shut up and quietly pop out babies (because Eve).  Then they're worthy of love by God.

Or somesuch.  (and I'd be like, but that IS misogyny! and they'd be like, no it's not! It's the natural order!) etc. In the hypothetical argument I could have with myself.

Yah, they could say that. As I pointed out, they discriminate against women, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily hate or dislike them. Doesn't mean it's correct to discriminate against women like they do.

Elton John has recently said something along the lines of Jesus would be cool with the gays if he did returneth.  I expect that wouldn't go down well too someone who felt their religion justified the statement 'God hates fags' (still in the global minority bible belt, in the further minority of Westboro )

But would that very statement then be defamation to other Christians who felt, that actually, their God didn't hate fags?  And it would be harming the reputation of Christians who don't want to be seen as homophobes by worshipping a homophobic God? (apart from the trouble in proving "The Christian (my) God hates fags" seems similar to proving " The Christian (your) God is misogynistic" as false)

Why would the statement "If Christ returned he had no problem with gays." harm the reputation of Christians who agree with that statement? <,< But yah, both "The Christian (my) God hates fags" is quite obviously false by about all reasonable standards (just as the misogyny statement) and is in my opinion defamation. Actually, last time I saw someone stateing that - a Christian, indeed - I told him straight on that this is blasphemy. No, I didn't sue: it wasn't a public statement.

Though conceivably, even within the bracket heading of Christianity, and under the other branches of denominations and sub-denominations, still maybe people have their own God within that.

Of course every person has his own concept of God(s). (Yes, 'God does not exist' is a concept of God and his nonexistence.) That concept can deviate from institutional concepts of God, like the catholic concept of God or the Christian Concept of God. Still, those institutional concepts are protected (and imho rightfully so), even against defamation from subgroups. Weird situation, maybe, but I see no problem in that.