lsparrish comments on A proposal for a cryogenic grave for cryonics - Less Wrong

17 [deleted] 06 July 2010 07:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (137)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lsparrish 10 July 2010 04:04:44PM 1 point [-]

This kind of stuff makes me boil with anger. Some bureacrat busybody inserts garbage about irradiation into a law at the last second, and there's nothing we can do to get it out? Is there some kind of international law against defamation? Because that is exactly what this is. And the stuff they prattle on about it taking advantage of patients in a vulnerable state is total nonsense. What they're doing -- pressuring patients into not cryopreserving -- is taking advantage, and in a particularly grotesque and unconscionable manner.

Ironically, if I were to send them a letter or call them about this stupid law they'd take it as me being a foreign busybody. This is stupid. They're the ones harming BC's global reputation by keeping such idiotic laws on the books.

/rant

Comment author: Vladimir_M 10 July 2010 05:18:26PM *  1 point [-]

Isparrish:

Some bureacrat busybody inserts garbage about irradiation into a law at the last second, and there's nothing we can do to get it out? Is there some kind of international law against defamation?

On the contrary -- as a general rule, in English-speaking countries, legislators enjoy immunity from any legal consequences of anything they say or write in the course of their work. This is known as "parliamentary privilege," and goes far beyond the free speech rights of ordinary citizens. In particular, they are free to commit libel without repercussions, as long as they speak in official capacity.

In the U.S., this is even written explicitly into the constitution ("for any speech or debate in either House, [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place").