Everyone who believes that free speech is fundamental to the function of western civilization should be celebrating the sanction of the criminals that take advantage of defamation laws. It may seem counterintuitive that the standards of incrimination by assertion , or reference to an ‘apparent’ deduction related to ‘facts’ as interpreted by the reporter or person of assumed authority should be so strict. But the stakes involved in ‘perception’ are so high that the costs to the ‘accused’ must not be exceeded by the costs to the ‘accuser.’ Political fortunes are gained and lost by the veracity of claims made through ‘investigative reporting’. Depending on the stature of the individual journalist, or assumptions of filtering and review done by an organization,such as the Guardian, Times or Post/s, tremendous momentum is created to establish what then becomes ‘narrative’ as a report enters the vortex of the news cycle.
— Yeah, yeah. So what’s the point? O thou Master of the obvious?! —
These people and institutions have the psychological value of every syllable, every sound bite, catalogued, valued and algorithmed for their purposes in pressing meaning through acceptance or rejection UPON US ! They think of themselves as the master potters and, we are the clay! The amount of influence generated by a few words in the limited time randomly devoted to paying attention is multiplied by orders of magnitude in the ‘sub’conscious according to aggregates of listeners, voters, followers.
Up to this point, disputes over the effects of ‘reports’ turned narrative have been loosely regarded as ‘emotions’ related to resentment or insult or the dimming of one’s sterling reputation. And the aggrieved seek the equivalent of the hired gun in the old West, that most esteemed of all scum, the attorney who has learned the value of fanning the flames of an affront, charging hundreds or thousands to drag out a litigation as long as subhumanly possible. So you get your day in court in front of a judge who has heard it all, with prejudice, to the point of “Did it really make a difference to anything but your ego?”
But defamation and libel are on another level of reality. Enter ‘lawfare’. That big bully tool made strategy by ‘those who can.’ For the sake of sensation, and leads onto stories that promise at least some ongoing interest, or purpose, media will put something out there that serves the accuser’s interest. Just knowing that a challenge will cost a fortune. Multiply that by orders of magnitude when offices of the government become involved. Then enter the time that the accused is under the cloud of public scrutiny, perception, and reserve in the ‘benefit of doubt.’ Costs under these conditions, whether tempered by color of political persuasion or not, (and most are) if for no other reason than the potential implications of political outcome. So what seems like an emotional spate over hoe reports are made , or “facts’ presented, especially in light of how a continuation of ‘investigation’ may go; regimes, hackers, strategists want in, to all the communication possible, for their own purposes, NOT the purpose of ‘freedom of speech’. Not protection of privacy, or individual rights, or the common good. No.
Unless there is one standard of right and wrong — the truth — there is no justice, no rights, no resolution of civil or criminal responsibility. Along with the pace of resolution. There is no greater urgency for justice and rights in the arena of “free speech” and the other side of the coin, restitution for defamation by false speech.
There are metrics by which these things are determined, and they do not require re-inventing the wheel. But lawmakers need to re-assess the costs of ‘Lawfare’ and defamation to the public, including the taxpayer in the aggregate, and the accused in particular. The world of litigation needs a realignment with reality. Unrestrained censorship as a control on free speech is totalitarian — not our answer.
I submit a reply to my comments as a statement of predicate for my aversion to Ms Cadwalladr’s objections to Elon’s “louder, faster, further disseminations of ‘his’ truth”, as though somehow the toxicity of his masculine projection of influence in ‘free speech’ is nothing more than a human bot creation of ‘mini-Musks’ or whatever.
Reminds me of the real reason women are not to be professionally matched in competition w men over the strength of, or the weight of ideas that can come to physical dominance. It will always be true that without the deference to a woman’s generic lesser physical strength, it will always be true that a clear distinction must be drawn between the ultimate gravity of the words used in battle (over said ideas). It is that distinction that the communist ideologues who seek to press confusion and minimized respect for gender differences upon us. Ironically, the very toxicity that she projects upon our subconscious is otherwise well interpreted to be the instinct that men are given to hold truth as the standard for ALL, not as she would have it, Elon for himself or all such mega-Musks, but for her perfumed, proffered polemics so wise and anchored. Right. Anchored in the futile attempt to overlord your transient ideas of right and wrong into the security of a weaponized security state of double-standard lawfare.
I know damn well this sounds chauvinistic, and toxic to the core. But give me my due — women have their lane in the public discourse, as do the men. And while every analogy has its limits, think about what the woman boxer said after losing to the tranny in the Olympics — “I’ve never been hit so hard before in my life.”
So get the knot outta your panties,
Ms Cadi. And stop trying to weaponize the security state to serve your feminine seductions over right and wrong. It leads to nothing better than a recreation of the ‘state of nature.’ Which, according to Locke, is ‘coarse, brutal, and short.’
Everyone who believes that free speech is fundamental to the function of western civilization should be celebrating the sanction of the criminals that take advantage of defamation laws. It may seem counterintuitive that the standards of incrimination by assertion , or reference to an ‘apparent’ deduction related to ‘facts’ as interpreted by the reporter or person of assumed authority should be so strict. But the stakes involved in ‘perception’ are so high that the costs to the ‘accused’ must not be exceeded by the costs to the ‘accuser.’ Political fortunes are gained and lost by the veracity of claims made through ‘investigative reporting’. Depending on the stature of the individual journalist, or assumptions of filtering and review done by an organization,such as the Guardian, Times or Post/s, tremendous momentum is created to establish what then becomes ‘narrative’ as a report enters the vortex of the news cycle.
— Yeah, yeah. So what’s the point? O thou Master of the obvious?! —
These people and institutions have the psychological value of every syllable, every sound bite, catalogued, valued and algorithmed for their purposes in pressing meaning through acceptance or rejection UPON US ! They think of themselves as the master potters and, we are the clay! The amount of influence generated by a few words in the limited time randomly devoted to paying attention is multiplied by orders of magnitude in the ‘sub’conscious according to aggregates of listeners, voters, followers.
Up to this point, disputes over the effects of ‘reports’ turned narrative have been loosely regarded as ‘emotions’ related to resentment or insult or the dimming of one’s sterling reputation. And the aggrieved seek the equivalent of the hired gun in the old West, that most esteemed of all scum, the attorney who has learned the value of fanning the flames of an affront, charging hundreds or thousands to drag out a litigation as long as subhumanly possible. So you get your day in court in front of a judge who has heard it all, with prejudice, to the point of “Did it really make a difference to anything but your ego?”
But defamation and libel are on another level of reality. Enter ‘lawfare’. That big bully tool made strategy by ‘those who can.’ For the sake of sensation, and leads onto stories that promise at least some ongoing interest, or purpose, media will put something out there that serves the accuser’s interest. Just knowing that a challenge will cost a fortune. Multiply that by orders of magnitude when offices of the government become involved. Then enter the time that the accused is under the cloud of public scrutiny, perception, and reserve in the ‘benefit of doubt.’ Costs under these conditions, whether tempered by color of political persuasion or not, (and most are) if for no other reason than the potential implications of political outcome. So what seems like an emotional spate over hoe reports are made , or “facts’ presented, especially in light of how a continuation of ‘investigation’ may go; regimes, hackers, strategists want in, to all the communication possible, for their own purposes, NOT the purpose of ‘freedom of speech’. Not protection of privacy, or individual rights, or the common good. No.
Unless there is one standard of right and wrong — the truth — there is no justice, no rights, no resolution of civil or criminal responsibility. Along with the pace of resolution. There is no greater urgency for justice and rights in the arena of “free speech” and the other side of the coin, restitution for defamation by false speech.
There are metrics by which these things are determined, and they do not require re-inventing the wheel. But lawmakers need to re-assess the costs of ‘Lawfare’ and defamation to the public, including the taxpayer in the aggregate, and the accused in particular. The world of litigation needs a realignment with reality. Unrestrained censorship as a control on free speech is totalitarian — not our answer.
I submit a reply to my comments as a statement of predicate for my aversion to Ms Cadwalladr’s objections to Elon’s “louder, faster, further disseminations of ‘his’ truth”, as though somehow the toxicity of his masculine projection of influence in ‘free speech’ is nothing more than a human bot creation of ‘mini-Musks’ or whatever.
Reminds me of the real reason women are not to be professionally matched in competition w men over the strength of, or the weight of ideas that can come to physical dominance. It will always be true that without the deference to a woman’s generic lesser physical strength, it will always be true that a clear distinction must be drawn between the ultimate gravity of the words used in battle (over said ideas). It is that distinction that the communist ideologues who seek to press confusion and minimized respect for gender differences upon us. Ironically, the very toxicity that she projects upon our subconscious is otherwise well interpreted to be the instinct that men are given to hold truth as the standard for ALL, not as she would have it, Elon for himself or all such mega-Musks, but for her perfumed, proffered polemics so wise and anchored. Right. Anchored in the futile attempt to overlord your transient ideas of right and wrong into the security of a weaponized security state of double-standard lawfare.
I know damn well this sounds chauvinistic, and toxic to the core. But give me my due — women have their lane in the public discourse, as do the men. And while every analogy has its limits, think about what the woman boxer said after losing to the tranny in the Olympics — “I’ve never been hit so hard before in my life.”
So get the knot outta your panties,
Ms Cadi. And stop trying to weaponize the security state to serve your feminine seductions over right and wrong. It leads to nothing better than a recreation of the ‘state of nature.’ Which, according to Locke, is ‘coarse, brutal, and short.’