Free Speech vs Defamation of Character

From Seattle Post Intelligence:

PERUGIA --Italian authorities have served the parents of Amanda Knox with legal papers notifying them they are under investigation for defamation, an accusation related to their allegations that police brutalized their daughter.

People might feel sympathy for Amanda because she's young and cute (despite the denim jacket). The Italian people already distrust their police. Heck, we aren't very big fans of our own police, here in Washington. These claims, truth or not, only reinforce a pre-existing distrust of police.

What actions do the police, as employees of the state, have against these allegations. By rules of logic, they are unable to prove that misconduct did not occur. Their best option is to maintain their professionalism and transparency throughout the case.

Cases of defamation of character in American courts are typically awarded to situations regarding individuals and private organizations. Cases that hold up in court are typically follow a utilitarian argument, gauging the malicious repercussions of the message against the social utility of the content.

For example, a department store may not post photographs of shoplifters on its front doors because it is of no use to the public to see the faces of people who have already paid for their crimes. Also, the information may hurt business opportunities otherwise available to publicly shamed individuals. A libertarian argument would suggest that public image is like a commodity that holds value. Damage inflicted upon public image is like damage of any other property and must be compensated for.

People exempt from pressing defamation charges are public figures such as politicians and celebrities. Their public image is regarded as public property and a fair subject for free speech.

Westboro Baptist Church in Seattle

Westboro Baptist Church came to Seattle Sat, to protest against synagogues, churches and public schools.



My girlfriend came with me when I was shooting this video. She had an interesting conversation with a rabbi from the nearby synagogue while the rest of us were occupied gawking at the haters.

The rabbi asked, why are people so eager to give them press coverage? Some people might think that it is the journalists civic duty to report about possible threats to the community but I am not so quick to buy into this theory. At what point does the reporting of the news distort the event?

The Wesboro Baptist Church are not dangerous. Never before has a member of the Westboro Baptist Church been accused of violence. If the police come to a protest, it is to protect the haters from society, not to protect society from the haters.

The danger of the Westboro Baptist Church is their ability to distort arguments. For example, there is legitimate discussion to be orated on the role of the US and Israel in the middle east. But to simplify the discussion to God hates Jews is very counter productive. It reflects poorly not only on themselves but onto everyone who has faith in God or is critical of Israel.

It is interesting to watch the gay community. Of all minority groups striving for civil rights, the gay community enjoys the controversy and is able to use it to their advantage. Watch the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the video below as they approach other gawkers to give money for their cause.



The comments section of my videos are like little windows into how common America feels about issues of free speech. They try to tell me that 'hate speech' is the antithesis of democracy and must be stopped. I disagree.

To the Wesboro Baptist Church I would like to say, it's great that you feel that way and I encourage you to continue voicing your faith because open dialogue is what makes America great.

westboro baptist church is coming to town

so the westboro baptist church is coming to seattle. you can see the details on their website here. the events begin friday evening and end monday morning. stops include spu graduation and garfield highschool.

here is a thoughtful meditation on the coming of the phelps family.



i am going to be covering the event for seattleiam, this up and coming video hosting site for video journalists. i hope to see plenty of people at the protest, ready to share their views and share their appreciation for our freedom of speech.

Bumfights!

The proof that shock sells is in Bumfights. Four men are responsible for the controversial video series. Two of them are film students. One of those film students is from UCLA. Ironically, these men and their videos are now famous, primarily through the publicity provided by people who have strived to silence them. These efforts were not only self-defeating but unnecessary.

Look at Ty Beeson’s 2006 appearance on the Dr. Phil show. This show should be studied in communications classes. First, Dr. Phil introduces his guest as the man you must warn your children about. After he gives the parental warning, he shows the audience clips from the Bumfights video. At just the right moment, he cuts the tape and he performs his rehearsed display of indignance.

Dr. Phil has seen this video before but his goal is to make his own feelings accessible to his viewers, who are just now seeing the video for the first time. He uses his therapist voice to order his guest off the stage and once his guest is gone, the doctor makes an appeal to the audience and their sense of dignity.

His message is to his audience is thus: I am a guiding light for intelligent and moral people. In contrast to me is Ty. He is a role model for fools. If you are intelligent, you will listen to me. If you are a fool, you will buy Ty’s video.

Dr. Phil might act degusted but his intent was never to silence the Bumfights videos. His goal was to use Ty as a boogieman by which to make himself look good. Despite criticism from bloggers, it is fair to say that Dr. Phil succeeded.

Talk show hosts such as Dr. Phil go inadvertently inspire the Cosmeticians to write their congressmen in hopes that the government might step in and override The First Amendment and apply prior restraint in the name of obscenity. These motions have enjoyed minimal success.

This objection to obscenity has been most successful on a capitalistic rather than legal level. Merchants reserve the right not to carry a product for any reason. Most traditional and online stores have opted not to carry Bumfights.

Other enemies of Bumfights have sought to silence the videos on basis of Bad Tendency. Several incidents of violence targeted at the homeless have been vaguely connected back to the entertainment videos. These motions have enjoyed less success than the former.

The most effective motions against the makers of the Bumfights videos have not been related to The First Amendment at all. Rather, legal action has been taken against the creators for staging the illegal fights. In 2004, the city of San Diego sentenced two of the four creators to jail.

Freedom of speech and capitalism go hand in hand. In many ways, they keep each other in check. When freedom of speech comes into question, as in the Bumfights issue, capitalistic principals are there to do what government cannot and should not do. That is, to shut down offensive speech by making it unprofitable.

Most importantly, the two depend on each other to co-exist. The free flow of ideas, no difference how absurd or offensive, is closely tied to the free markets. To silence any speech, even Bumfights, would be to make silent the life force that makes America great.

assignment: neil horsley

neil horsely himself posted this video on youtube.

i told neil, " news and rhetoric should not be confused. news does not cast moral judgment. rhetoric does and also calls for action."

he replied to me right away: The very subjects chosen as "news" proves a moral judgment is being made by the news media. Why report when a law is broken? A moral judgment has been made by the news media that breaking the law is bad. Every news report telegraphs a moral presupposition that is obvious to people with eyes that see and ears that hear. Oh wait! Now I see why you didn't understand that news DOES cast moral judgment.

my statement to him is, "the idea of news and the application of news are arguably two different things. for practical purposes, the lines between news and rhetoric are fuzzy. but the idea of news and the idea of rhetoric are different."

"news does not report violations of the law because it is bad but because logically, it violates public safety and compromises the integrity of the marketplace. its goal is to bring attention to conditions. the analysis of those conditions is up to the viewer.

"rhetoric is different from news because it overtly dispatches a call to action. the news tells you that your neighbor has been robbed. the manipulative rhetorician tells you to buy a gun because you are next. you could argue that the news also encourages you to find means to protect yourself but this is only through inductive reasoning on your behalf."

i am curious how he will respond to this but i do not expect it to be very insightful. neil is the type of man who relies on violence to get his point across.

if you follow this link read the description that he gives his video, you will see: "This provides a good overview of the abortioncams project as well as the kinds of media attacks the project creates."

Look at the last part. This video is a good overview of the kinds of media attacks (Neil) creates through his videos.

This is fascinating to me.

assignment: who gave me my rights, p1

i want to reflect on the idea of rights because those ideas are strange. a right, such as the right to free speech, is a legal guarantee. and a legal guarantee is an agreement between two parties. one party makes a promise to another party that some property shall not be removed nor shall its quality be compromised.

we might not give it enough thought but common sense would tell us that there must be a third party to ensure that fairness plays out. that referee must also be detached enough from the situation enough to make an objective and fair judgment. but also, he must be involved enough to make an informed and educated decision. there must be a balance between two conflicting extremes.

when we talk about the first amendment, who is making the promises and to whom are those promises made? the promiser and the promisee. when the bill of rights were drafted, the us government made a promise to the american people.

this is an important distinction to make because legal guarantee is issued, it creates an exclusive relationship between the promisee and the promiser. no third party should ever be held accountable for this promise.

for example, if you purchase a product with a lifetime guarantee, you are buying a promise from the company that manufactured that product. that company has made a promise to you that if that product fails under any circumstances, they will either refund your money or replace the product. under no circumstances would that company go to your neighbor to cover the cost. even if your neighbor was the one who broke it.

likewise, free speech is most effective and least controversial when applied to situations that are exclusive between individual american citizens and the government. it ceases to make sense and is most controversial when applied to situations that do not involve the government and the government is called to act as a third party.

in other words, just as your neighbor did not make the lifetime guarantee on the product, your neighbor never granted you the freedom to speech.

so should the bill of rights be reworded? your freedom of speech does not mean "say whatever you want about whomever you want" but "what whatever you want about me"

further, in what forum are you guaranteed the right to free speech? in the newspapers? in the streets at night? when you are drunk and incoherent?

who upholds these rights? how is a referee selected? is it up to the government to police themselves into following through with these promises, when it is most often in the government's best internist to break those promises?

the bill of rights for example, is a promise between the us government and the american people. how can we select an objective third party, who is neither the us government or the american people and yet qualified enough to reside as the authority and involved enough to care?