Should defamation be against the law

[DavidOdden 0]

I have been thinking about the topic of defamation, and whether it should be punishable under the law (under civil law, not as a crime). While I have no question that it is nasty (to use a technical term) to knowingly promulgate untruths that harm the reputation of another, I cannot construct a coherent argument that satisfies me that this is a serious enough harm that it warrants the use of state power (which may well be the evidence that it is not). While my good actions should, in rational people, cause a good evaluation of me -- myy actions create my reputation -- such rational people also should not believe lies about me without seeing solid evidence that my alleged wrongdoing is a fact. Even if others do believe these bad things about me, I do not own their minds or any part of it, so I have no entitlement to their good opinions. My conclusion is that if a person rejects me, personally or professionally, without sufficient evidence that I am blameworthy, then they have strayed from the path of reason on their own, and that my defamer has not actually caused this foolish conclusion on the part of others. Therefore, since I have no property right to a particular belief that may exist in others' minds, I should not be entitled to use the power of the government to overcome whatever alienation of affection from society has occurred.

Any arguments, one way or the other, that would help me loosten my food from these rocks would be greatly appreciated.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

My conclusion is that if a person rejects me, personally or professionally, without sufficient evidence that I am blameworthy, then they have strayed from the path of reason on their own, and that my defamer has not actually caused this foolish conclusion on the part of others. Therefore, since I have no property right to a particular belief that may exist in others' minds, I should not be entitled to use the power of the government to overcome whatever alienation of affection from society has occurred.

←

What do you mean by "sufficient evidence?" If I need a new pool service and I ask my neighbor, whom I know only casually, whether he recommends the one that I see come to his door every week, and if he tells me he is firing the service because they have lied to and cheated him, then would you not consider that "sufficient evidence" for me to move on and consider any one of many other different pool services? In other words, since I know nothing of the service but what the neighbor tells me, and there are many other alternative services I could investigate, I think it would be entirely reasonable to accept what the neighbor said, and investigate another pool service.

Now, if for some reason that neighbor fabricated the story about the service lying and cheating, then has he not defamed that service and caused them financial damage? Granted the neighbor did not use direct physical force, but his defamation of the pool service was a fraudulent attempt to influence my otherwise reasonable conclusion.

[Rational_One 0]

In the recent Wendy's case involving the finger in the chili, the women who made the claim lied. This defamation clearly cost Wendy's a lot of money and even still does since some people (like my Grandpa) still won't eat there. I think it is totally proper for Wendy's to sue this lady for defamation, and that it is also totally proper for the government to prosecute her for filing a false police report. Even in a rational society not everyone is always rational and people will be emotionally swayed in a negative direction at times that can unfairly effect a person or company. The people who purposely lied, especially when their purpose was to loot the company, should be fully prosecuted and held responcible for the unfair negative effects their lies caused.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I have been thinking about the topic of defamation, and whether it should be punishable under the law (under civil law, not as a crime). While I have no question that it is nasty (to use a technical term) to knowingly promulgate untruths that harm the reputation of another, I cannot construct a coherent argument that satisfies me that this is a serious enough harm that it warrants the use of state power (which may well be the evidence that it is not).

←

OK. How about these situations?

A leading credit bureau responds to inquiries about you by saying, falsely, that you have defaulted on five credit cards and there are three unpaid judgements against you. Because of this you lost out on a deal that would have made you a million dollars and a company that was about to make you a great job offer just cancelled out. You contact the credit bureau and tell them the information they have been giving out is false. They say, "So what? That's your tough luck."

Someone spreads the false story that you are a convicted child molester. You come home to find the neighbors are picketing your house and one of them says, "If you know what's good for you, you'll get out of town."

A romantic rival falsely tells your girlfriend that you are bi-sexual and have AIDS. She leaves you.

Should the state do anything about any of the above? Why?

[DavidOdden 0]

What do you mean by "sufficient evidence?" ....I think it would be entirely reasonable to accept what the neighbor said, and investigate another pool service. ...but his defamation of the pool service was a fraudulent attempt to influence my otherwise reasonable conclusion.

In answer to your first question and rephrasing it somewhat -- "how much evidence is sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the accusation as true?", that's a thread in its own right. I don't think the neighbor's word, as you describe it, is sufficient to sustain a conclusion. His report contradicts my "benevolence" assumption (that people act rationally), so it is proof that either the pool guy is bad, or my neighbor is bad. I really ought to investigate to see if there is any substance to the accusation, so that I know whether my neighbor is evil. I recognise that I'd probably just move down the list of pool guys, giving in to laziness. My bad.

I disagree that there is any fraud. There is dishonety, but no fraud (I'll raise this below w.r.t. finger chili). I have been trying to pursue the fraud angle but I'm not getting anywhere with it. I have no contractual relation with this neighbor. In your hypothetical, there is a contractual relationship between the pool guy and the neighbor, but assuming this isn't simple contract violation (the part that the neighbor didn't read, which says 'you may not speak ill of this service for 2 years following the termination of this contract'), the neighbor has not defrauded the pool guy (has not misrepresented what he offers as consideration -- payment, nothing more). So this is a basic privity of contract issue, that the neighbor does not incur a contractual obligation to me because of his contractual obligation with the pool guy plus my curiosity about the pool guy's service.

If you can defend the general claim that the government should enforce collection of compensation for any damages that result from a knowing false statement, that would subsume defamation; it would also subsume false praise (where the neighbor dishonestly praises the pool guy who is actually a crook, inducing me to hire the bum). Would you support a change in the legal system to include a right to compensation for "damage from dishonesty"?

In the recent Wendy's case involving the finger in the chili, the women who made the claim lied. This defamation clearly cost Wendy's a lot of money and even still does since some people (like my Grandpa) still won't eat there. I think it is totally proper for Wendy's to sue this lady for defamation, and that it is also totally proper for the government to prosecute her for filing a false police report.

The false report issue is separate; in this particular case, I think she actually was attempting to extort, so this is best assimilated under fraud or extortion, and not defamation. If she had just tried to ruin their reputation because she has an irrational hatred of them and their chili, that would be simple defamation: hence this particular case is irrelevant and her defamation is only incidental. All issue of prosecution are off the table for this discussion -- I'm only considering the civil issue, defamation.

Even in a rational society not everyone is always rational and people will be emotionally swayed in a negative direction at times that can unfairly effect a person or company.

This is true, but what is the principle regarding law that gives irrational people a special right? Analogously, I think that Cheezie Poofs are just plain bad for you and you should just shun them. The manufacturers are "taking advantage" of my weakness, and that of millions of others who can't fully engage their rational faculty and say no. They are unfairly affecting me, but not coercively. The "negatively affects" standard is too weak to be a basis for invoking state power. If you allow the state to force payment for all forms of "negatively affecting", well, you'd have what we seem to be heading towards at breakneck speed.

A leading credit bureau.... false story that you are a convicted child molester... A romantic rival falsely tells your girlfriend that you are bi-sexual and have AIDS. She leaves you.

Should the state do anything about any of the above? Why?

Three classic examples of defamation, and why, indeed. The credit bureau example is distinguishable from the romantic rival in magnitude and nature of damage, but otherwise they are the same, in terms of fundamentals. In version 2 of the credit bureau example, let's suppose that my loss is only $20, and suppose also that their knowing untruth was simply that I had defaulted on one credit card to the tune of $200. Should I be entitled to sue these guys whom I have no contractual relationship with? I don't feel strongly that I do have that right; I can't come up with any reason to support the use of state enforcement in these cases, since the error was made by the people who uncritically accepted these false statements. I certainly don't have an absolute right to that potential job or business deal, and even supposing (contra naturem) that I did, the legal matter would be between me and the guys that I had dealings with (the would-be business partners or employer). Shouldn't I be able to sue the employer for "insufficiently cautious evaluation"? I don't think so; which makes it even harder for me to see where an obligation between me and the credit bureau comes from. Maybe the employer could sue the bureau for a breach of contract in terms of their agreement to provide accurate information. I just don't see how I can impose an obligation on another person who don't have an agreement with.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't think the neighbor's word, as you describe it, is sufficient to sustain a conclusion. His report contradicts my "benevolence" assumption (that people act rationally), so it is proof that either the pool guy is bad, or my neighbor is bad. I really ought to investigate to see if there is any substance to the accusation, so that I know whether my neighbor is evil. I recognise that I'd probably just move down the list of pool guys, giving in to laziness. My bad.

Perhaps the confusion is over what is meant by "conclusion." In my sense I have not reached any conclusion over any factual dispute between my neighbor and his pool service. In order to do that I would have to investigate and ascertain the facts in detail, which is far from my purpose. It is sufficent for me to take the word of my otherwise reasonable neighbor (if I had justification for questioning his reason I would not have asked for his recommendation in the first place) and not to waste my time considering this pool service for which there is now a probable reason against them, when I can investigate many other more neutral pool sevices. It is not a issue of my "laziness," but simply an issue of how to best spend my time considering my purpose.

I disagree that there is any fraud. There is dishonety, but no fraud ...

The man deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to deprive the pool service of being rightfully considered for work. That to me is a fraudulent act, whether or not it meets the legal definition of fraud. Regardless, the main point is that the man's defamation caused financial damage to the pool service; he knowingly told an untruth about the service which was meant to influence my decision about considering the service.

[DavidOdden 0]

The man deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to deprive the pool service of being rightfully considered for work. That to me is a fraudulent act, whether or not it meets the legal definition of fraud. Regardless, the main point is that the man's defamation caused financial damage to the pool service; he knowingly told an untruth about the service which was meant to influence my decision about considering the service.

I don't mind if people want to use words one way vs. another, as long as I understand what they are saying. The term "fraud" does have very specific content legally; I would prefer to use the term in its legal sense when discussing law, just to avoid confusion. There are two questions here (and an implicit suggestion that I get from your response), which ought to be considered. First, moving from the concrete example of you, your neighbor and the pool man to the general concept, are you saying that the wrong is in knowingly misrepresenting reality? Note that I omitted specification of purpose -- I would not think it matters whether it was done for my ostensive benefit, or someone else's detriment. Second, do you claim that should this be a matter subject to state regulation (for example, enforcing damage claims), and if so, why? A possibly minor third question would be whether you only consider provable financial damage to be a cause of action -- I would assume so.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

There are two questions here (and an implicit suggestion that I get from your response), which ought to be considered. First, moving from the concrete example of you, your neighbor and the pool man to the general concept, are you saying that the wrong is in knowingly misrepresenting reality?

It is morally wrong to knowingly misrepresent reality, but the legal wrong is the rights violation and damage done to the other.

Second, do you claim that should this be a matter subject to state regulation (for example, enforcing damage claims), and if so, why?

The state should codify laws against defamation, adjudicate the matter, and enforce penalties as required.

A possibly minor third question would be whether you only consider provable financial damage to be a cause of action -- I would assume so.

←

I do not know enough about the law to say with surety that financial damages are the only criteria, but provable financial damages is certainly the obvious one.

[DavidOdden 0]

It is morally wrong to knowingly misrepresent reality, but the legal wrong is the rights violation and damage done to the other.

Drat, I thought it was clear what I was trying to sort out. What specific right are you referring to? The right to only hear (be presented with) an honest representation of reality? Or the right not to have people say untrue things about you? Before you answer, let me interject the problem of false praise: if your neighbor knowingly positively misrepresents the merits of the pool man, you hire the guy, and discover later that he is a crook. Do you have a right to sue your neighbor for false praise? (This is not defamation). The root question here is, what facts of existence point specifically to a right not to have people say untrue negative things about you (if that is the right you're saying exists), and not integrate legal rights and morality fully into a right to only hear an honest representation of reality?

The state should codify laws against defamation, adjudicate the matter, and enforce penalties as required.

If we can make this be a matter of rights in one case, no right in another, then no problem.

I do not know enough about the law to say with surety that financial damages are the only criteria, but provable financial damages is certainly the obvious one.

On the other hand, you certainly know enough about morality to say something of importance. IMOO, the actual law in its full details is wrong, though not offensively off the mark. I'm asking a normative question about what the law should be. The crux of the question here is the difference between immoral actions and rights-violating actions. I suppose what puzzles me is the idea (which you may well not have had) that there is something intrinsic to the law that has to be known, before determining what the law should be.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It is morally wrong to knowingly misrepresent reality, but the legal wrong is the rights violation and damage done to the other.

Drat, I thought it was clear what I was trying to sort out. What specific right are you referring to? The right to only hear (be presented with) an honest representation of reality? Or the right not to have people say untrue things about you? Before you answer, let me interject the problem of false praise: if your neighbor knowingly positively misrepresents the merits of the pool man, you hire the guy, and discover later that he is a crook. Do you have a right to sue your neighbor for false praise? (This is not defamation). The root question here is, what facts of existence point specifically to a right not to have people say untrue negative things about you (if that is the right you're saying exists), and not integrate legal rights and morality fully into a right to only hear an honest representation of reality?

Rights pertain to freedom of action, and reason is our guide to that action. If a person knowingly misrepresents the facts in order to influence my reason for contracting or not contracting with a service, then he is responsible for his own fraudulent action much the same as if he used direct physical force. The degree of his culpability and the extent of the damages depend on the facts and are a matter for the law to decide.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If you can defend the general claim that the government should enforce collection of compensation for any damages that result from a knowing false statement, that would subsume defamation; it would also subsume false praise (where the neighbor dishonestly praises the pool guy who is actually a crook, inducing me to hire the bum). Would you support a change in the legal system to include a right to compensation for "damage from dishonesty"?This is true, but what is the principle regarding law that gives irrational people a special right?

←

There is no reason to assume that a person deceived by a liar is irrational. A reasonable man tends to trust most people to tell the truth because most people do. By this reasoning, people who are defrauded by a con-man and seek legal redress are "irrational people" that the law gives a "special right."

One difference between defamation and fraud is that the person defrauded and the person damaged are two different people. It is analogous to a murder-for-hire where the person hiring the hitman and the person doing the killing are two different people. Both the defamer and the one who hires the hitman are causally responsible for the damage done and, properly in my opinion, they ought to be legally held responsible for the damage.

Murder for hire is murder one guilty agent removed. Defamation is fraud one innocent agent removed.

[Paul's Here 0]

I have been thinking about the topic of defamation, and whether it should be punishable under the law (under civil law, not as a crime). While I have no question that it is nasty (to use a technical term) to knowingly promulgate untruths that harm the reputation of another, I cannot construct a coherent argument that satisfies me that this is a serious enough harm that it warrants the use of state power (which may well be the evidence that it is not). While my good actions should, in rational people, cause a good evaluation of me -- myy actions create my reputation -- such rational people also should not believe lies about me without seeing solid evidence that my alleged wrongdoing is a fact. Even if others do believe these bad things about me, I do not own their minds or any part of it, so I have no entitlement to their good opinions. My conclusion is that if a person rejects me, personally or professionally, without sufficient evidence that I am blameworthy, then they have strayed from the path of reason on their own, and that my defamer has not actually caused this foolish conclusion on the part of others. Therefore, since I have no property right to a particular belief that may exist in others' minds, I should not be entitled to use the power of the government to overcome whatever alienation of affection from society has occurred.

Any arguments, one way or the other, that would help me loosten my food from these rocks would be greatly appreciated.

←

Your reputation is more than just what you create. It is an integration of your actions and other people's evaluation of your actions. The definition of reputation is: "1 a : overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b : recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability <has the reputation of being clever> 2 : a place in public esteem or regard : good name." In a societal environment, a reputation is more than just a record of your past accomplishments. A reputation is a testimony to how you will act in the future. If it represented only what you've done in the past, it would be useless since everyone has free will and could act irrationally at any moment. In the marketplace, a reputation is a tangible asset that has monetary worth. If you apply for a new job, your potential new employer has no way to evaluate your "good actions" since he has no way of having observed them. He must rely on references who will testify to your past actions, with the expectation that you will continue to act in a manner suitable to the new employer.

Presumbably, a rational person has exterted great effort to create a good reputation. In dealing with other people, you do have a right to your reputation and you do have a right to their good opinions in the name of justice to you. It is not a matter of "owning their minds" but of deserving their recognition. You have traded your effort for the respect of other people who have dealt with you. This is a "spiritual" trade. If other people who know you to be honest tell your prospective employer that you steal company property, they have embezzled you: you have traded your efforts for lies. Clearly, this is theft by them of your values at a minimum, a reason for civil litigation since they have deprived you of a job (monetary damage) by destroying your reputation.

[Rose Lake 0]

I was thinking in the same vein as Paul. A reputation (if it is not a bad reputation) is a value that individuals and corporations earn by generating profit (material or otherwise). A reputation is basically the property of whatever individual or corporation has earned it. The phrase 'good will' is used in accounting to label the financial value ascribed to the good reputation of a business.

Someone who (before he is known to be lying) damages an individual or company's reputation based on a lie, has damaged property that does not belong to him, and should have to pay to restore the damage that he caused.

Lying in praise is not damaging the property of the person about whom the lie is told. But in such cases lies that seriously misrepresent someone, depending on the specifics, could constitute fraud; if some innocent party had reason to trust the falsehood(s), and was cheated out of some value based on the lie(s).

[Dan Cross 0]

I just joined the Forum upon the recommendation of one of my Objectivist friends. I've viewed many threads and this is the first thread I've seen where I would disagree with what seems to be the majority viewpoint.

It's a First amendment issue. Freedom of speech! The pool boy doesn't have a right to your business and the neighbor's comments haven't prevented you from getting his business, your assumptions have.

One cannot take anyone's word as gospel truth, to use an expression. Speech cannot be a crime in any instance. Saying any word is not a crime, unless it violates some contractual obligation. However malicious the intent, it does not violate anyone's rights. Right to a reputation? That is a contradiction, due to the fact that a person's reputation is relative to various individuals and to be guaranteed a unanimous reputation does amount to controlling the minds of others.

In the end, defamation, slander, and libel cannot be considered a crime in a rational society because they are not factors that prevent man from performing the necessary functions of his existence. To put in perspective, do you think Hank Rearden would file a lawsuit against someone who told a prospective customer Rearden steel was unsafe or garbage? No way, in my opinion, he would not want to do business with a person that was unable to evaluate reality objectively by himself.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In the end, defamation, slander, and libel cannot be considered a crime in a rational society because they are not factors that prevent man from performing the necessary functions of his existence.

←

So then, would you consider all fraud to be excluded from being a violation of rights, or just the fraud of "defamation, slander, and libel?"

[DavidOdden 0]

Speech cannot be a crime in any instance.

Saying any word is not a crime, unless it violates some contractual obligation.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that defamation is a crime or that it should be: the question is whether it is a civil wrong allowing recovery. That would be analogous to your neighbor leaving a dead tree standing on his property, threatening your house, and if it blows over in a storm and damages your roof, you are entitled to compensation. Certain forms of speech are rightly criminal, namely threats, treason and perjury.

The fundamental issue is whether you have a right to the product of your mind, and does that extend to all mental product or only some mental product (i.e. shovels, books and other manufactured goods). If you consider a reputation to be a particular concrete state of mind that others have about you, there is no question that you have no right to impose an evaluation of your actions on others -- you can't make people think good thoughts about your good deeds.

In the end, defamation, slander, and libel cannot be considered a crime in a rational society because they are not factors that prevent man from performing the necessary functions of his existence.

That presupposition actually supports a restriction against defamation, and would support something broader than just defamation (as being proscribed). Consider frauds, which we consider to also be properly against the law. If I promise to give you a new 2005 Lexus in exchange for $20,000 in gold, and it turns out that what I deliver to you (after taking your gold) is just a Lexus chassis, I would have defrauded you by not including the engine, transmission and brakes that are also typically considered to be part of "a new 2005 Lexus". You could have asked me "Does this car include..." and you could read me the whole parts list. Your failure to do so "clearly" indicates that these are not important questions for you, and therefore you have no right to anything from me when you discover that it's just an expensive chassis.

This is not a rational way to live: man cannot exist as a rational being in a civilized society if he must assume that every person is always trying to cheat him. Equally, man cannot survive qua man living in a society, if you can never presume that others speak the truth. The question is whether state force is justified under those circumstances. If state force is justified only to prevent initiation of force, then it's much harder to argue that lying about a person is the initiation of force; if you take a broader perspective on just use of force by the state, i.e. if you see the state as the means of using force in a regulated manner to bring about all conditions necessary for man's survival as rational being living in a civilized society, the argument goes through -- but at the same time, any dishonesty would be a crime.

[Dan Cross 0]

First of all, fraud, or misleading someone in a deal about a new Lexus is a different thing entirely that defamation.

We were talking about compensation for someone damaging your reputation rather than stealing your money. They are entirely different subjects. If I say something about your character that does not prevent you from taking any course of action you like, rather it just may affect the way other people act towards you, which you have no right to make in demands in that regard other than they don't initiate physical force, fraud of course a type of initiation of force as Ayn Rand herself said.

Now, in the case of the Lexus, it depends on the contract that was made. This has nothing to do with defamation. If you agreed to pay for a new 2005 Lexus, well a Lexus is a car and not just a chassis, that it what it means. To try to manipulate it into the chassis of a 2005 Lexus would be fraud and you would of course should be able to take recourse in a civil suit.

I hope that cleared up my views but please respond with your opinions.

[Dan Cross 0]

I meant to add that the seller of the Lexus would be violating his contract that he made with the buyer, hence it would be fraud.

Your assertion David, as I see it, is that my assertions mean that fraud does inhibit man's functioning in his proper role qua man. But I don't believe this to be true. As I said all speech should be protected, unless it conflicts with contracts previously made (like the Lexus seller's shenanigans) made or steals from someone, like credit card fraud, etc.

If people are not forced to honor their contracts, men cannot interact with one another rationally, but insults or disparagements or even told untruths about a persons character do not prevent rational individuals from interacting with one another, with no initiation of physical force.

The unanswered question remains: which of man's rights are being violated?

Also on a sidenote could you rearticulate what presupposition I make that supports restriction of defamation, which it seems you equate with fraud. I might have misunderstood you.

[RayK 0]

mcgwiddles,

If I understand you correctly fraud should be allowed because it is a part of free speech. Lets see; A newspaper prints that I used to be the owner of a company that took money from all its clients illegally, this is a fraud. This brings into question my integrity with all my clients, and they leave, taking their funds with them. I end up having to claim bankruptcy, because not only did I go out of business, but no one will hire me. By your premise, so be it, the newspaper columnist had the right to print any arbitrary idea he wanted, its free speech.

Well I think I have a different course of action, and I would take it.

[Dan Cross 0]

mcgwiddles,

  A newspaper prints that I used to be the owner of a company that took money from all its clients illegally, this is a fraud.  This brings into question my integrity with all my clients, and they leave, taking their funds with them. 

←

Well if I understand you, you assert that you have a right to a job and your clients. It is not a fraud in the true sense. Nothing was taken from you that was yours by right. Your customers dealt with you by their own choice. You have the opportunity to prove your innonence and make your case. If they believe the faulty newspaper, it is their loss, and the newspaper would not be able to get away with repeated instances of that type of reporting anyway, but that is a non-essential. The point is you don't the right to your clients funds. They can't decide to business with or without for whatever reasons, correct or misinformed. Once again, the newspaper did not lose you your clients, your clients took away their business due to their ineptitude at checking the facts, in using their reasoning mind.

In a rational society, you don't just assume things are true. You look for evidence. Anyone can say whatever they want about me and I will respond with either that is true or that is false or its none of your business and let everyone else decide for themselves. In a laissez-faire capitalist society, would John Galt sit around and whine because someone said something bad about his character. No! He'd find a rational person, show them his engine and make lots of money. Even if he was unemployed, do you imagine John Galt file a court case saying, "Judge, this man said I was a sexual predator, incompetent, etc. Now I can't get a job, I want some compensation.

If you can, you got a very different impression of Atlas Shrugged than I did.

[DavidOdden 0]

The point I'm making is about the justification for law and the use of force. I agree that contracts should be enforced, and that fraud is a violation of contractual rights. The question is whether the prohibition of fraud is a primary moral principle, or is it a consequence of another more general principle. In your first post, you said "they are not factors that prevent man from performing the necessary functions of his existence", which suggested to me that you considered this to be an important principle governing how legal force should be used: this is different from the more libertarian-based statement that the proper function of government is to protect rights and prevent the initiation of force.

Fraud is not entirely different from defamation: it shares essential characteristics of dishonesty and causing damage. It is not the same, but it is not entirely different as you said. As you may have seen in this thread, I reject the fraud analysis on the grounds that it is simply wrong and inapplicable, being based on false assumptions of what fraud refers to (privity of contract questions rule out any treatment of defamation as a species of fraud). That does not mean that I reject the possibility of a concept subsuming fraud and defamation: they share the characteristics of denying / obscuring reality thereby causing harm to others.

I'm familiar with Rand's statement in "The nature of government" connecting fraud with the indirect use of force: "consist[ing] of obtaining material values without their owner's consent, under false pretenses or false promises." However other writings of hers recognise that fraud is distinguishable (especially cases where she presents disjunctions of "force of fraud"): AS 62: "Yet no penny of his wealth had been obtained by force or fraud", 784 " You have heard it said that I believe that this system has depravity as its motive, plunder as its goal, lies, fraud and force as its method", 1028: "Force is all they know, force, fraud and plunder!"; Ayn Rand Letter 1:16 "Those intellectuals who favor a "peaceful" establishment of socialism mean, apparently, that it is not to be established by force, but by fraud—by the stealthy, gradual disfranchisement of its opponents", 3:22 "It may be a gift, a loan, an inheritance, a handout, a fraud, a theft, a robbery, a burglary, an expropriation."; CUI 47 "and the law courts, to protect men's property and contracts from breach by force or fraud". I raise this objection simply because I am not persuaded that Rand considered non-initiation of force to be a moral primary, necessitating the reduction of fraud to a species of force.

You make these two statements: "If people are not forced to honor their contracts, men cannot interact with one another rationally, but insults or disparagements or even told untruths about a persons character do not prevent rational individuals from interacting with one another, with no initiation of physical force." and "your assertion David, as I see it, is that my assertions mean that fraud does inhibit man's functioning in his proper role qua man. But I don't believe this to be true". As for the second statement, I'm just puzzled whether you just denied that fraud inhibits man's functioning in his proper role qua man. As for the first statement, I'd like to see an elaboration -- why is it possible to interact rationally with others under conditions of untruthfulness, but it is not possible to interact rationally with others if contracts are not violable.

You repeat that "all speech should be protected, unless it conflicts with contracts previously made (like the Lexus seller's shenanigans) made or steals from someone, like credit card fraud, etc." -- I put out there three examples where that is untrue, namely threats, treason and perjury. I don't know whether to conclude that you consider threats, treason and perjury to be legitimate forms of speech; I should add to this copyright infringement. Do you oppose legal sanctions against these acts?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In a rational society, you don't just assume things are true. You look for evidence.

Yes, and in the case of defamation, libel and slander, the evidence lies in the intentional falsity of the claims and in the damages that were caused.

Anyone can say whatever they want about me and I will respond with either that is true or that is false or its none of your business and let everyone else decide for themselves.

And it matters not to you if what was said was intentionally false and caused you financial harm? To ignore this seems more appropriate to an anarchist society than to a rational one.

[RayK 0]

mcgwiddles,

Did one not have to produce to achieve that which they have earned, I think so. So if someone takes that which you have earned, by lying or being fraudulent, they are taking away your production. And, when you take them to court to prove they are lying, you again have to use your own production in the form of money to prove their arbitrary claims are a lie.

I never said nor did I assert that I was born with the right to a job. I do have the right to that which I produced, and part of that is my reputation. A person is not born with a reputation, good or bad, it has to be earned. The way to earn it is through your production, honesty, that which makes you, you. So, when someone, anyone tries to take it by a knife, or through fraud, I am going to fight them.

In a rational society we have courts to protect our rights. And the rights to your production follows from the rights to your life.

What I meant by not being able to get a job, was a job that could pay your expenses. For example; lets say you make $10,000 month as a manager of a company. While you are fighting the fraudelent charges in court, you have been released by your previous company. When you fill out an application, or send your resume to another company for hire, they are going to want to know why you were released. Without knowing much about this person except that they were released from their last job for the fraudulent reasons, are you going to hire them and risk your company over someone you don't know? So in the example just given, the person has to take on a low income job in accordance to his now lost/stolen reputation. Know this person can only get a job for $1,500 a month, but still has all the responsiblities of his once higher income.

If you still do not think that fraud is a form of theft, then I can't and don't care to convince you.

[Dan Cross 0]

Both of you make valid points which I will attempt to address. First off, Stephen, I don't believe that someone saying something about my character can be a direct cause me to be harmed financially. Whoever believes the falsehoods through their laziness or stupidity or whatever and stops doing business with is the cause of the financial damage, the defamer is only an influence. I don't see anything relating to anarchy about it. People are free to trade services with one another and they are able to decide what is and is not beneficial for them, and they can choose to attempt to distinguish true from false as they please, hopefully realizing that the more truth they know the better off they are.

Secondly, my statement you pointed had a few gaps in that I do agree that threats should not be protected and preemptive action can be taken against serious threats. Also, I overlooked treason, actively working to violate people's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be allowed in a free society. Copyright infringement is theft, as intellectual property is a necessity of a free society. As far as perjury goes, I believe the right to a fair trial is absolutely necessary, and anyone found to hinder that process should be punished accordingly.

Also I meant to type doesn't where I have does in "your assertion David, as I see it, is that my assertions mean that fraud does(n't) inhibit man's functioning in his proper role qua man. But I don't believe this to be true" So I can understand your confusion and I apologize.

But although my statement was a little too all-encompassing as you have pointed out, what I am trying to get at is the character defamation, not all these other "frauds" doesn't inhibit man qua man. All the other instances involve some for or threat of force. Defamation can be combatted simply by rational people. You and Stephen Speicher are both extremely intelligent people, and I'm sure if want to hire someone or get something done, you thoroughly evaluate whatever important questions or disputes that may arise and I would imagine you don't stop till you've found the truth. That is what rational people do. In a rational society, jobs, elections, etc. are awarded by objective standards, not he said she said.

Do you think Midas Mulligan wouldn't have invested in Hank Rearden because someone said this or that or whatever?

I still must ask is the essential question still: what right of man has been infringed upon. Your person is not damaged, your property is not taken, you may have hurt feelings or lose opportunities due to certain people's inability to judge facts, but is that reason enough to make defamation against the law?

[Dan Cross 0]

RayK,

Reputation is a relative thing. You're repuation varies from person to person. Therefore, the idea of this wholesale theft of a unanimous reputation is questionable. You don't have the right to have people think well of you. In the situation you described, a rational employer would accept the most qualified person. I don't believe completely unsubstantiated statements, and I don't believe a rational employer would not hire or would fire a capable employee because of an unsubstantiated claim or even a circumstantial claim. Once again the defamer isn't taking away your reputation (does it suddenly become his?). The defamer simply is an impetus for people to evaluate their perception of you. The defamer does not program to think less of you, the prospective employer or whoever makes that decision themself.

The essence of your reply is that lying is the initiation of force, your reputation is only part production but just as much other individuals' perception which does not belong to you at all.

Your right to your reputation? So you have a right to how other people perceive you? People have the right to think whatever they want about you for whatever reason. I just don't see how you can believe you deserve financial compensation because someone influenced another person to perceive you negatively. Let your character action do your influencing (I mean hypothetically, I don't wish the situation upon you). That is what I think Howard Roark, Hank Rearden, or John Galt would do.