Speech crime?

[labmath2]

What do you guys think about libel or defamation laws? I think most if not everyone will agree that yelling fire in a crowded theater should be considered a crime. What about intentionally lying about someone in a way that affects their livelihood? I am thorn on this. I am more on the side of no speech crime unless it creates immediate danger to people.

[Pepin]

Walter Block has a great section in his book "Defending the Undefendable" on the subject.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

 

The topic is incredibly difficult to discuss without concerning yourself with the details of a free society. Reputation systems would be quite likely, and people probably wouldn't take accusations seriously if it was anonymous. Instead, people would want to know about the person making the claim and their reputation for legitimate claims. If someone was known for libel, nobody would take them seriously, and it is likely that many service providers would refuse to do business with them. If someone had a very positive reputation, though it may not always mean the person is correct or is committing libel, it is far more indicative.

 

An analogy is that of credit. Someone attempting to get a loan who has terrible credit will be denied because of their past behavior. Though it may be true that this might be the one time they will pay it off, it isn't assumed to be likely. Someone with perfect credit will get the loan because they have a history of paying off the loan. Though there is some chance that they will go rouge and not pay it off, this chance is very small and unlikely.

 

To go further, with these reputation systems, it would be far easier for a person to defend themselves against this sort of stuff, as they will have record of their reputation. The company will actually have an incentive to clear your name of any libel and to speak in advocacy for you. If enough proof to the contrary is provided, they will seek out to decrease the reputation of the libeler until restitution is made. The decrease in reputation might affect who will do business with them, friendships they have, their life at work, the price they have to pay for a DRO, and so on.

 

To get the gist of my reply, it isn't something that you can use force against someone for as no violence is committed, but it is something that societal systems can guard and take action against.

[june]

could you explain how such acts are "crimes"? you just sort of stated that like it is presumed , but it is notif someone walks into my store and yells "you need to give me all your produce or else the world will end!" and i then hand them all my goods, then that is an action that i voluntarily choose to do.  he did not hold a gun to my head or force me to hand over the produce. so if you want to classify theese acts as crimes , then you need to prove where the force and immorality is

[Marius C.]

The acts that labmath2 talks about are libel and defamation specifically. Libel is the publishing of false information or accusations against someone. It is not going to the store and robbing it by giving it false reasons -- that falls under fraud, if not stupidity given your example. Libel or defamation is standing in a public area, or publishing a newspaper article, stating that you are a child molester when you are not.

 

I agree with Pepin's response. In an anarchic society, reputation is extremely valuable as it allows people to decide whether to interact with someone (in any way) or not.

[cobra2411]

could you explain how such acts are "crimes"? you just sort of stated that like it is presumed , but it is notif someone walks into my store and yells "you need to give me all your produce or else the world will end!" and i then hand them all my goods, then that is an action that i voluntarily choose to do.  he did not hold a gun to my head or force me to hand over the produce. so if you want to classify theese acts as crimes , then you need to prove where the force and immorality is

I'm not sure you understand libel or defamation; that is what the OP specifically mentioned. Allow me to adjust your statement to see if the OP's question makes sense. Someone stands outside your store and announces to people "Don't buy here, the owner is a pedophile that rapes little children and stomps on kittens." Your customers begin to shop elsewhere and there is a noticeable decline in revenue. The person outside made his statement up with no proof whatsoever. 

 

In the current system I feel they should be civil penalties, not criminal laws to handle this. Actually, other than hate crime laws I'm not sure there are criminal sanctions for libel and defamation, but I'm not an expert. In any case, clear harm must be shown. If some homeless guy stands outside stating "don't buy here or the world will end" and everyone ignores him the only thing you have left is to remove him from your property. Not much harm there. 

 

I also agree that in an ancap system reputation points would likely be an effective way to deal with things like this. There would need to be a way of making and verifying complaints and positive reviews of people, but I don't think that would be too hard to figure out. 

[Pepin]

could you explain how such acts are "crimes"? you just sort of stated that like it is presumed , but it is notif someone walks into my store and yells "you need to give me all your produce or else the world will end!" and i then hand them all my goods, then that is an action that i voluntarily choose to do.  he did not hold a gun to my head or force me to hand over the produce. so if you want to classify theese acts as crimes , then you need to prove where the force and immorality is

That would be a threat. It is similar to mafia types suggesting that something might happen if you don't pay them. The claim, though silly, is enough to interpret as "if you don't comply, I am justified in using violence against you". Threats violate the nap. If you want reasons why, there is plenty of literature on it.

[regevdl]

II agree. Coercion doesn't have to involve force but it's a negative consequence or "loaded" choice that negates volunteerism. Just saying "give me all of your produce" and you say "no" is a non aggressive request and voluntary rightful reply. Once you insert a negative civseqyence or a "or else" then that us a type of aggressive coercion.

[Alan C.]

There shouldn't be any laws against defamation because a person cannot claim ownership over thoughts in another person's mind, nor the equipment/materials used to convey the false allegations.

 

There's nothing wrong with yelling 'Fire!' in a theater if there is a fire. However, if there isn't a fire then the prankster responsible would be liable for financial losses incurred by moviegoers and theater owners.

[labmath2]

To be honest, i not completely convinced by argument for why psychological crimes (the mafia insisting you pay them or an accident might ensue, misinformation that result in bad decisions) with no immediate danger to people can be considered coercion. Those types of crimes require participation of the victim (voluntary in some sense). Someone burning down your store is still a crime (you are not obligated to comply to demands based on the threat to burn down your store at some future time). Or fraud where you have opportunity to appraise the information or change the contract to be contingent on the information being accurate. 

 

I would appreciate articles or podcasts about these types of situations.

 

I use crime to mean you can forcefully act in prevention or demand restitution for the act.

[june]

Someone stands outside your store and announces to people "Don't buy here, the owner is a pedophile that rapes little children and stomps on kittens." Your customers begin to shop elsewhere and there is a noticeable decline in revenue. The person outside made his statement up with no proof whatsoever. 

so?this person did not use violence against me , nor act immorally; or are you suggesting that lying is an immoral act? if that is what you are saying, please specify how you quantify that.

[PatrickC]

Fraud as opposed to lying my dear June is a very specifically deliberate infraction on a persons reputation. Let's get the definitions in order here.

[june]

Fraud as opposed to lying my dear June is a very specifically deliberate infraction on a persons reputation. Let's get the definitions in order here.

i am operating under the principle that force/breaching someone elses property rights (Selfownership) is immoral. are you?if you are, then you need to explain how such scenarios (of "fraud" or "lying", like the example above) are in breach of selfownership. otherwise it cannot be said to be immoral.

[PatrickC]

June my blessed flower.. All of that was entirely predictable. Use a bleedin dictionary.

[Brentb]

What do you guys think about libel or defamation laws? I think most if not everyone will agree that yelling fire in a crowded theater should be considered a crime. What about intentionally lying about someone in a way that affects their livelihood? I am thorn on this. I am more on the side of no speech crime unless it creates immediate danger to people.

 

If a woman falsely accused you of rape, and you had to deal with all the repercussions of that, would you still be torn?

[labmath2]

If a woman falsely accused you of rape, and you had to deal with all the repercussions of that, would you still be torn?

good point

[Psychophant]

There is no society there are just people, who associate or disassociate with each other deliberately.
 
 

That would be a threat. It is similar to mafia types suggesting that something might happen if you don't pay them. The claim, though silly, is enough to interpret as "if you don't comply, I am justified in using violence against you". Threats violate the nap. If you want reasons why, there is plenty of literature on it.

Only if the threat isn't impotent and not just a way of manipulate someone's actions into one's favour. Not just a faux statement, what a impotent threat is + it is not an explicit threat, therefore it is umbiguous. That would mean, the only harm that was caused is someone peed his panties. It boils down to credibility.
 
The state threats on a constant base with the use of force, but these threats are known to be real.
 
Brentb, on 08 Aug 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

If a woman falsely accused you of rape, and you had to deal with all the repercussions of that, would you still be torn?good point

 

That's consequentialism. The problem is, that someone believes her and takes her accusations for face value.