jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (12 posts)

National Security?

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world … odayspaper

    The activist was arrested because "calling Mr. Morsi a killer and criminal...could undermine state security."

    Our own government increasingly invokes "national security" to justify many of its activities, such as keeping people in prison indefinitely.  I wonder if calling a president a killer and criminal will, in the future, lead to arrest.  All anti-war groups would be "breaking the law," as would anyone who held a particularly corrupt president to account.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can't really speak for Egyptian laws, courts or charges, but in the US the President would most definitely have a case if anyone published a claim that (s)he was a "killer" and "criminal".

      It would not be for national security reasons, though - just as the article says there has been a rise in libel suits in Egypt that that's what it would be in the US as well.  Whether President or Joe Blow on the street, such statements are illegal to make unless they are true and provable.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1 and true.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you calling our Vice President "Joe Blow on the Street" Wilderness?
        That's borderline libelous. You could get in big trouble!!!
        lol lol

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Never!  I only libel blondes with skimpy costumes and capes that fly through the sky.  big_smile

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's not slander if it's true...
            Guilty as charged. No doubt!
            smile

      3. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Political speech is protected, even if false, as ruled in 1964 by the Supreme Court.  In this case, that's the right call.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Sooner. How r u doing today?

          I am not so sure political speech is always protected even if false. It is my interpretation of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan  (1964) that, in order to prevail, the plaintiff must prove the defamer knew the statements were false and proceeded with “actual malice.” 

          “The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice, which in this context refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation.” {1}

          What is most significant about this Supreme Court ruling is the burden of proof was shifted from the accused to the plaintiff. “The rule that somebody alleging defamation should have to prove untruth, rather than that the defendant should have to prove the truth of a statement, stood as a departure from the previous common law.”
          {2}

          Is your understanding different?
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_T … ._Sullivan
          {2} Ibid

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed."

            You pretty much can't prove malice at all.  In fact, even trying to do censors free speech.  What if a politician sues a blogger, and the blogger was simply citing information from World Net Daily they thought was true?  Is the government the truth police?  And political opponents in a campaign slander and libel each other non-stop.  There's no way to really enforce this.

            And, like you pointed out, the "burden is shifted from the accused to the plaintiff.  So not only do I have to prove you KNOWINGLY lied with "malice in your heart," but also you must disprove my allegations against you!

            Looking deeper into this.."In the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain defamatory statements were protected by the First Amendment. The case involved a newspaper article that said unflattering things about a public figure, a politician. The Court pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court acknowledged that in public discussions -- especially about public figures like politicians -- mistakes can be made. If those mistakes are "honestly made," the Court said, they should be protected from defamation actions. The court made a rule that public officials could sue for statements made about their public conduct only if the statements were made with "actual malice." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ … 29718.html

            I think I disagree with the ruling.  Public officials are of a different type, and speech, especially political, cannot be censored in a truly free society.

            However, as to my point about whether the politician suing for libel would have a real case, my original point stands.  It's highly unlikely the court would rule in favor of a politician. 

            You also failed to address my point about natural security at all.

  2. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    'National security' - a hypnotist's trigger that disables critical thinking.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately true, on both sides of the fence.  An almost automatic response to request for information to many, an almost automatic response to denial of information to many others.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So true Miff.

 
working