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 And Libel Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
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: January 2130
Description[?]:
| We believe citizens have the right to go to court at all times. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Libel laws.
Old value:: Individuals may sue over falsehoods printed on them.
Current: Individuals may sue over falsehoods printed on them.
Proposed: Individuals may sue over all defamatory remarks printed on them, even truthful ones.
Article 2
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:17:34, October 21, 2005 CET | From |  Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Slander And Libel Act |
| Message | If the remarks injure the character, reputation, or ability to make a living - AND ARE TRUE - why is it the fault of the media saying so? If they are false then I completely agree that restitution is in order, but if the remarks are based in factual evidence, why should they be able to 'win' in court. And what exactly should be restitution? Take a look at the current law: right now there will be obviously some cases dismissed because the allegations are true and the cases goes no further. With your law these cases could proceed. But on what grounds? This is like a law saying that the media, and in fact all individuals must be nice and not hurt the feelings of anyone else even if the statements are true - because if you do you could be sued. Not everyone has the 'right' to go to court, there needs to be an actual reason and speaking the truth should never be considered a reason. |
| Date | 16:29:34, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Slander And Libel Act |
| Message | We completely agree with the HO on this matter. |
| Date | 18:09:13, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Slander And Libel Act |
| Message | To us everybody should have the right to go to court when ever they want to or what ever their reasons. If they lose they pay the costs of the whole procedure. The freedom of speech is of course not in danger. |
| Date | 18:35:02, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Slander And Libel Act |
| Message | But the whole point is that they won't lose once you make it the law that truthful statements are actionable. Freedom of speech is, of course, very much in danger since this proposal would change the law such that the truth is considered slander/libel. As such, newspapers etc would be less willing to report the truth because the defamed party will be able to *successfully* sue the journalist for telling the truth. |
| Date | 03:41:25, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Slander And Libel Act |
| Message | Yes, LP picked up right where we left off due to real life. Currently, anyone can still bring charges against anyone else. But, and this is the key, if a grand jury or some other equiv. find the charges without base (i.e. the charges are actually not libelous, etc., or the statements are obviously true) then the case is dismissed. With this proposal it is all very different. If someone tends to have affairs while married (and proof has been demonstrated) and someone or some media calls them an adulterer they can sue. This could affect their chances of getting elected - especially if in a conservative area and that would be grounds enough to sue for damages. These are no grounds for a lawsuit. It is one thing to falsely smear someone, and a completely different thing to simply state the truth. Blending this with LP's statements, who will speak unpopular or potentially hot-button truths? It's hard enough now, but if you make it so that anything said in truth that could cause an adverse reaction no one will ever even hint at corruption or scandalous behavior. It would almost be the equivalent of just sensoring the media by some state-run agency for approved content. The nature of libel is that is has to be false. That's how the law works now. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 40 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 374 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 141 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "Zardugal. . . very successfully almost managed to implement democracy on a global scale, a millennia ago. With a seat in the Security Council we can do it again." - Phoebe Ĥoniato, former Zardic politician |