= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Schelling fences on slippery slopes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (189)
Pedantic-lawyer Tim says the exception is for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Edit: But the general point is right. Lots of law is some implementation of: "Better decided clearly now than decided correctly some vague time in the future."
I am surprised that pedantic-lawyer Tim does not also point out the origin of that phrase.
Specifically, the case Schenck v United States in which "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" was used as an analogy for protesting the draft.
I have therefore always been troubled by the origin of the phrase, even though it feels like a reasonable exception to make.
Edit: And now I see that Vladimir_M has already posted this.
Reminds me of the "best defence against libel is truth."
I doubt it. It doesn't seem likely that for some reason declarations that happen to be true will be the optimal declarations to make.
Sorry I may have been unclear, the quote means that when accused of libel a defendant can be exonerated if they prove the statement to be true, however damaging it might have been shown to be by the prosecution.
So to count as libellous a statement must be both false and have done provable damage to reputation. As such the easiest way to prove a statement is not libellous is to show it is true.
Rather than, how I think you interpreted it as meaning, that when libelled one should tell the truth in response.
Unfortunately, at least in certain jurisdictions, the burden is on you to prove that what you say is true.
A good burden requirement would be more qualified than either of those approaches.
I don't want to have to prove I do not spend my nights fantasizing about eating babies in the privacy of my own thoughts.
"I'm not saying my fellow candidate is a terrorist, but ladies and gentlemen, has he presented any conclusive evidence that he is not?"
"I just want to make him deny it."
And I would argue you should have the right to make that statement.
Ahh, that makes sense!
That's right.