| | Eh, I agree with your conclusion Bill, but I don't think I agree with your reasoning entirely. I don't claim to be an expert on this issue either, though.
Bill: "If you libel or slander someone, you force others to abstain from dealing with him, which they wouldn't do if they knew the truth about him, his character or his product."
If you falsely accuse someone of something and other people choose not to deal with that person as a result, I can't see how you've "forced" them not to deal with him. They could still choose to deal with that person anyway, despite what you've said/written, right? This is in contrast to laws that people could choose to break but would then have punishment imposed on them by the government. That's a case of force, which may or may not be morally justified depending on the nature of the offense that someone has been charged with committing.
What you've done in the case of defamation, however, is offer people an invalid reason to shun the person you've defamed. You've deceived them with false information, thereby undermining their capacity to make a rational decision. If someone can prove that has caused actual economic harm--which is a necessary condition for any defamation judgment--then you're responsible for that person's loss and should owe that person restitution.
|
|
