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: Slander
Details
Submitted by[?]: Bicky Forever - MSCC
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: April 2721
Description[?]:
| BF - MSCC wants to reopen the debate on this issue. We think that the rights of the person are limited too much by the current legislation. Everyone should be able to sue someone because of what that person said, regardless of the things he/she said were false or true. It's up to the judge to decide that. |
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: Individuals may sue over all defamatory remarks spoken about them, even truthful ones, unless in court testimony.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:31:30, March 01, 2009 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | How can we consider something to be defamatory if it's true? This goes against free speech, and provides the means for politicians to silence critics through fear and intimidation. |
| Date | 22:24:24, March 01, 2009 CET | From | Crimson Moon Party | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | This seems a tad silly. We are completely against |
| Date | 23:14:27, March 01, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | In case of malicious pronouncements, their will be often no agreement on what can be considered true and what not. An example: a scandal paper brings a story about a person who's now famous (let's say a politician). They write that the person in question used to beat his wife, based on a statement of an old acquaintance. In fact, their has never been reported an incident; it's clear that the article is only meant to make money and maybe also to put the person in question in the wrong. Shouldn't that person have the right to sue the scandal paper? I'm not at all saying that the judge must condemn the publisher. But it's the judge, and not the law which must decide over such things. |
| Date | 23:19:58, March 01, 2009 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | If there were evidence that the accusation was false, then the current law allows a lawsuit. If there is not evidence, then do we really want a lawsuit? If we allow true statements to be taken as slander, we open the floodgates to a flood of lawsuits for defamation. Any negative remark whatsoever could be legally actionable. Do we really want Ikradonians to fear prosecution for speaking truthful criticism? |
| Date | 08:17:49, March 02, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | Now that's the whole point. How can a person proof something what is said about him/her isn't true? Usually that's almost impossible. If someone declares that my grandparents collaborated with the nazis during the second World War, I will be furious, but I cannot prove it isn't true... |
| Date | 04:45:33, March 03, 2009 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | The burden of proof is on the person making those statements. They have to prove their truth by providing some kind of evidence, and not the other way round. Most reasonable people will not just blindly accept what they're told without question. |
| Date | 08:33:28, March 03, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | Well, than it's absurd that you don't support this bill. In the end, only a judge can consider if the claim that these statements are true, is true. |
| Date | 17:19:07, March 03, 2009 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | So why do you want to forbid our judges from considering that? |
| Date | 17:55:05, March 03, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | How do you mean? |
| Date | 00:04:24, March 04, 2009 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | If your law passed, truth would have no bearing on whether defamation had been committed, so judges would be unable to consider it. |
| Date | 09:17:59, March 04, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | I don't see it like that. In the beginning of the suit, it may be unclear if it's true or not, but the judge can speak out his judgment on it. They can consider it in their judgment. |
| Date | 13:19:08, March 04, 2009 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | No, what it says is that the truth has no bearing on whether a person can be found to have defamed another. In other words, an official who has been convicted for corruption can sue and win damages against someone who publicly denounces him as corrupt. |
| Date | 14:11:05, March 04, 2009 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | I can only conclude that CCC and NDP don't have any trust in our judges, if they believe that a judge will handle the way NDP described. The first thing our judges will do, is point out that it wasn't wrong to denounce the official in question as corrupt because he was convicted for corruption. |
| Date | 19:00:31, March 04, 2009 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Slander |
| Message | So in other words, we should change the law and not worry because the judged will ignore the new law. Or else you really believe it does not say that, in which case you should brush up on your English. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 169 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 531 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey |