[Idiom] 'to pull a runner'

[5jj]

In the US we see a difference between libel and slander. Libel refers to written statements and slander refers to spoken statements. It's the same in BrE. I used 'libel rather sloppily.
I have the absolute right to say anything I want to say. If a person does not like what I say or write, they have the right to sue me in a court of law. The various laws around this subject are complex and are somewhat of a moving target in that legal decisions change from time-to-time. In any case, I have the right to say the King is a fink. If the King doesn't like that representation he may elect to sue me for damages. The possibility of a lawsuit in no way limits my rights.

I'll have to take your word on that. In Britain it is against the law to say certain thing, to incite violence, for example.

 

[TheParser]

I don't think you have the right to use inflammatory language


NOTE: NOT A TEACHER


(1) I have to be super careful, for I do not want the moderator to either close this

thread or move it to a members-only discussion mode (which prevents non-members

from reading this).

(2) Therefore, I shall only say that:

(a) You are correct: inflammatory speech is not covered by any "rights."

(i) The famous example, of course: one cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater

if there is no fire.

(ii) One cannot report certain facts during a war.

(iii) It is illegal to say certain derogatory words about certain races, religions, etc.

(3) The bottom line (as we Americans like to say):

Even if the Constitution gives us the "right" to say certain things, there are

things that a normal person would never say, for the consequences could be

legal (taken to court), social (losing one's job), or even physical (getting punched

out). In the United States, as in every other country, people simply do not say

certain things in public -- if they know what is good for them. De facto free speech

is limited in every country. That's life.

P.S. On American and British newspaper websites, all comments are moderated

before being posted. And some American newspapers will not allow comment on

certain controversial topics. Why? Because they feel that some comments are

simply too inflammatory for the community to tolerate.

 

[Tdol]

We have the same difference but talk of libel laws as a general term covering both.

I agree with you that the laws don't restrict your rights and the laws only clean up after the event, but the English libel and defamation laws are a disgrace- they place the onus on the person accused to clear their name instead of presuming innocence and are currently being implemented is such a manner that they are having a serious impact on freedom of speech. The US won't recognise foreign rulings on this because the English courts are taking on cases that people argue they should have no jurisdiction over- so-called libel tourism

 

[BobK]

... I have the absolute right to say anything I want to say. If a person does not like what I say or write, they have the right to sue me in a court of law. The various laws around this subject are complex and are somewhat of a moving target in that legal decisions change from time-to-time. In any case, I have the right to say the King is a fink. If the King doesn't like that representation he may elect to sue me for damages. The possibility of a lawsuit in no way limits my rights.

Your use of 'absolute' is an interesting one. I think you mean 'I have the right to say anything I want to say, within the jurisdiction of the USA.' (I'm tempted to say more, but forum rules forbid it. )

b

 

[Olympian]

We have the same difference but talk of libel laws as a general term covering both.

I agree with you that the laws don't restrict your rights and the laws only clean up after the event, but the English libel and defamation laws are a disgrace- they place the onus on the person accused to clear their name instead of presuming innocence and are currently being implemented is such a manner that they are having a serious impact on freedom of speech. The US won't recognise foreign rulings on this because the English courts are taking on cases that people argue they should have no jurisdiction over- so-called libel tourism

Interesting to know this. We have medical tourism, ecotourism and agritourism here, and I had read about sex tourism in Thailand, and even about space tourism but libel tourism is quite interesting and surprising.

 

[Tdol]

Lord Denning, an English judge, talked of forum shopping many years ago for this kind of activity, where people would look for the best jurisdiction for their case.

 

[Olympian]

I came across another term on the TLC (The Learning Channel) - wildlife tourism.

 

[5jj]

I came across another term on the TLC (The Learning Channel) - wildlife tourism.

Sorry; I may have missed something, but I don't see the relevance of that link

 

[Tdol]

Sorry; I may have missed something, but I don't see the relevance of that link

I posted a Wikipedia link to libel tourism and seem to have started a trend in the thread.

 

[Tdol]

I came across another term on the TLC (The Learning Channel) - wildlife tourism.

There's also aid tourism.

 

[BobK]

Sorry; I may have missed something, but I don't see the relevance of that link

It just adds to the list started in Olympian's earlier post.

b

 

[Olympian]

I posted a Wikipedia link to libel tourism and seem to have started a trend in the thread.

@fivejedjon, sorry if it confused you. I was merely providing a link describing yet another type of tourism as BobK has also mentioned.

@tdol, thank you tdol. I hope you don't mind me posting it. Feel free to remove/move.

 

[Tdol]

I didn't mind at all. :up:

 

[5jj]

@fivejedjon, sorry if it confused you. I was merely providing a link describing yet another type of tourism as BobK has also mentioned.

Please don't apologise if I am too dense to see the point of something.