We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Torts (Slander) Abolition Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2589
Description[?]:
| An act to abolish the tort of slander. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Slander laws.
Old value:: Individuals may sue over malicious falsehoods spoken about them.
Current: Individuals may sue over malicious falsehoods spoken about them.
Proposed: The nation has no laws regarding slander.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:56:30, June 08, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | Freedom of speech is much more important than hurting someone's feelings with some harsh words. |
| Date | 18:05:05, June 08, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | Com'on, you know slander is more than just yelling a foul word at someone.. Slander is about deliberately making false statements to maliciously hurt someone's reputation. These falsehoods spread about someone (eg a teacher falsely accused of child molestation, a banker falsely rumoured to be named in a fraude case,..) does more than only hurting someone's feelings, it also can reflect on their business, their career,.. and have serious financial consequences. Thus they should be able to sue for damages. |
| Date | 03:09:21, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | Falsely accusing someone of a crime would be covered elsewhere, probably as a crime itself. Perhaps if there was a particularly deserving case (though it would be hard to see one), the courts will formulate an appropriate remedy away from statute law. In any case, we need to regard freedom of speech as sacrosanct. |
| Date | 18:32:36, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | Filing a false complaint (eg mother making allegations father abuses childe to win the divorce) at the police is indeed a crime in itself. However, my point still stands.. making false and damaging statements in public of non-criminal acts can be just as harmfull to the reputation and business/carreer of the accused. Thus they should be able to sue for damages. Although I hate overly sueing-eager societies, I believe this is just about a question of fairness.. If harm is being done unto someone, they should be able to be compensated by those who caused the harm. |
| Date | 22:13:09, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | Yes, and if a person suffers very real harm, the courts will be able to fashion an appropriate remedy. A blanket statutory rule is not the right way to go. |
| Date | 23:28:05, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | No, if you're abolishing the law which incriminates slander, the courts have no law to base their judgement on. Like I said before, it's not about one person yelling "dickhead" at another that will get you sued. It's about the deliberate and malicious spreading of false statements to hurt someones reputation. All elements (deliberate + maliciousness + intent + it being false statements + caused harm) have to be fullfilled for it to qualify as slander. If these aren't there, they have no case. The elements are sufficiently restrictive, they make it impossible to sue just anyone for anything they might say... so it doesn't negatively affect the freedom of speech principle. Only those with malicious intentions, who abuse their freedom will get sued. |
| Date | 01:39:36, June 10, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | We abolish the statute law. The courts can still create a remedy if there is one needing to be created. A person should be allowed to say that a large part of the GLDS are paedophiles, for instance. Freedom of speech is freedom of all speech. |
| Date | 18:58:27, June 10, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | That's a lie. On the other hand, the JUP does condone.. no, advocated sex with animals. And that's a fact! :$ |
| Date | 18:59:09, June 10, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Torts (Slander) Abolition Act |
| Message | for future reference: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=198222 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 146 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 354 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater |