"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> I do not know who things are in the US, but over here we have
> placed a limit on free speech; we allow free speech, but draw
> the line at the point where it turns into grave insults. For
> instance, I can call someone an idiot or an asshole without
> being dragged to court for it. However, if I want to publicly
> call someone a Nazi or anti-Semite or child molester (to
> name a few), I better make sure I have the evidence to back
> my accusation.
I consider these analogies fatally flawed. Yes, in the US there
may be consequences for making such assertions ('slander' if verbal,
'libel' if written, and 'character defamation' in either case),
provided the assertions are made as statements of fact rather
than being implicitly or explicitly labelled as the opinion of
the asserter.
However, in either case the assertion can only be considered
a tort against the target -- in other words, a civil offence,
not a crime (which is an offence against the State). It is
up to the allegedly injured party to take action, not the
State.
The police analogy doesn't wash, unless you're likening the
listowners to the State and feel that interpersonal exchanges
are yours to police. In which case, seeyabye..
IANAL, of course.
--
#ken P-(}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millenium hand and shrimp!"
