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: Libel and Slander Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Leviathan 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: September 2327
Description[?]:
| Allowing individuals to sue newspapers for printing falsehoods creates a decided chill on the freedom of speech. If a newspaper becomes actionable whenever they make a factual mistake, then newspapers will choose not to run stories that they are not absolutely sure of. This, in effect, ends the use of anonymous sources and silences a good deal of the Malivian press. The idea that an individual could sue for a spoken statement is equally ridiculous and just as odious to the ideal of free speech. |
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: The nation has no laws regarding libel.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Slander laws.
Old value:: Individuals may sue over falsehoods and defamatory opinions spoken about them, if judged to be malicious.
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 | 18:31:23, December 09, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | We agree, the right to an opinion should be protected at all costs. However we feel that an individual has the right to protect their image and thus should be free to demand a retraction or correction if the media runs false information, and if the damage is great enough sue. |
| Date | 23:53:14, December 09, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | The remedy for bad speech is not less speech, but more speech. If an individual feels they have been wrongly portrayed, they can demand equal time and argue their case in front of the public. And whose measure will we use to judge fact and falsehood? No issue that has an undeniable right and wrong is ever a matter of public interest, and is unlikely to ever create the kind of discussion that leads to accusations of slander. We must guarantee citizens the maximum amount of protection possible, and that means we cannot allow courts to determin what is 'fact' and what is not. |
| Date | 09:33:14, December 10, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | The MDP opposes this bill. People have a right to recourse if their image is damaged by falsehoods, and that recourse is not always able to be done with more speech, but rather by the courts. As far as whose measure....the record is an undeniable fact as to whose measure. If the LP does not believe that the courts...which is an instrument..or 3rd branch of government and source of protection over its citizens..can be trusted with what is fact.. How can any other portion of the Malivian government,,,the LP included...be trusted with what is fact or not or what is in the best interest? |
| Date | 15:41:25, December 10, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | Opponents of this bill would do well to read the case of New York Times v Sullivan, as the court in that case quite eloquently explained why libel and slander laws damage and chill the freedom of speech of all citizens. |
| Date | 20:59:37, December 10, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | NYT v Sullivan did not suggest libel and slander laws should overturned, but rather instead set a high threshold for them when involving public figures,,suggesting actual malice instead of general falsehoods. The LP's opinion on prohibiting libel and slander laws would leave no recourse even for those harmed by the courts decision using actual malice. |
| Date | 02:55:40, December 11, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Libel and Slander Reform |
| Message | The MDP should note that it is our /slander/ laws, not our libel laws, that contain language on maliciousness. Our libel laws have no such protection. Malivia's current libel laws allow a court to decide what is and is not fact, placing too much power into the hands of a judge or jury. Especially when the speaker is expressing unpopular ideas, which is the only time and the most important time to defend free speech rights, we need legal and constitutional protection for speech rights. While we can see this is an unpopular idea, please consider this: has there never been a time in your life that you were the only person who believed something? Was there ever a time in your life when everyone was convinced you were wrong, but you knew you were right? Can you not see a time in the lives of our citizens when their statements about what they believe to be true will be consider a falsehood or a malicious statement by another person? If the answer to these questions is no, then congragulations, you are part of mainstream Malivian society, and have no need for free speech laws because people will always agree with you. If yes, though, you have a duty to protect those same rights you enjoyed for all others. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 64 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 84 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 52 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "An "acceptable" level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job." - Author Unknown |