| |
Calling someONE 'gay' defamation?
by Acidus at 10:20 pm EST, Dec 8, 2009 |
So some anonymous person was publicly claiming Ron Livingston is gay. Ron is suing him for defamation of character. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is whether calling someone gay is defamation: Ben Sheffner, a Hollywood copyright attorney, wonders in his Copyrights & Campaigns blog whether it is defamatory to falsely label somebody gay: It’s a very interesting issue; Obviously many people don’t like being falsely called gay, but some gay rights activists argue that to permit a defamation action for a false accusation of homosexuality perpetuates the harmful notion that there is something wrong, or shameful, about being gay. Indeed, a New York federal court recently ruled that a false accusation of homosexuality is not defamatory per se.
Its like saying "Tom Cross is such a woman!" Did I defame Tom? Only if being a woman is a bad thing. I'm interested in how this plays out. |
| |
RE: Calling some 'gay' defamation?
by Decius at 9:19 am EST, Dec 9, 2009 |
Acidus wrote:
Its like saying "Tom Cross is such a woman!" Did I defame Tom? Only if being a woman is a bad thing.
I think its a matter of intent (you jerk). If you intended to damage someone's reputation perhaps its defamation even if objectively there is nothing wrong with the label. Clearly, outing someone as a homosexual can cause them a lot of trouble - people take a lurid interest in this sort of thing even if they don't think there is anything wrong with it objectively. "OMFG, Billy is Gay?!" Its because it has to do with sex. Suppose the rumor was that Ron Livingston has a fantasy about having sex on top of a malfunctioning HP printer. Nothing wrong with that "per-say" but repeatedly attempting to inject that information into a wikipedia profile is obviously an attempt to embarrass Mr. Livingston. Furthermore, as Mr. Livingston is married there might be something wrong with that if he is also gay and dating a man, as this Wikipedia user has alleged. I think the fact that he felt he had to file a law suit over wikipedia edits that were likely quickly reverted is more interesting. Another example of why Wikitrust is necessary. |
|
| | |
RE: Calling some 'gay' defamation?
by lonew0lf at 5:55 pm EST, Dec 9, 2009 |
Decius wrote: Acidus wrote:
Its like saying "Tom Cross is such a woman!" Did I defame Tom? Only if being a woman is a bad thing.
I think its a matter of intent (you jerk). If you intended to damage someone's reputation perhaps its defamation even if objectively there is nothing wrong with the label. Clearly, outing someone as a homosexual can cause them a lot of trouble - people take a lurid interest in this sort of thing even if they don't think there is anything wrong with it objectively. "OMFG, Billy is Gay?!" Its because it has to do with sex. Suppose the rumor was that Ron Livingston has a fantasy about having sex on top of a malfunctioning HP printer. Nothing wrong with that "per-say" but repeatedly attempting to inject that information into a wikipedia profile is obviously an attempt to embarrass Mr. Livingston. Furthermore, as Mr. Livingston is married there might be something wrong with that if he is also gay and dating a man, as this Wikipedia user has alleged. I think the fact that he felt he had to file a law suit over wikipedia edits that were likely quickly reverted is more interesting. Another example of why Wikitrust is necessary.
What if they called Ron Livingston a faggot? For instance, if I were to make the claim "Ron Livingston is a faggot", would that make him gay? What if I were to take a page out of the Fox News book of tricks and phrase it "Ron Livingston is a faggot? What if Ron Livingston was a faggot? Now I have no proof that he is, but wouldn't that be crazy. That Ron Livingston is a faggot." In this case, am I calling Ron Livingston gay or just implying that he is acting like a faggot? Am I defaming his character or asking important questions? At the end of the day, being called gay is probably better than the rumor that "Ron Livingston likes to get gang banged by migrant day laborers on a malfunctioning HP printer." Because I heard that rumor... |
|
| | | |
RE: Calling some 'gay' defamation?
by lonew0lf at 12:50 am EST, Dec 10, 2009 |
lonew0lf wrote: Decius wrote: Acidus wrote:
Its like saying "Tom Cross is such a woman!" Did I defame Tom? Only if being a woman is a bad thing.
I think its a matter of intent (you jerk). If you intended to damage someone's reputation perhaps its defamation even if objectively there is nothing wrong with the label. Clearly, outing someone as a homosexual can cause them a lot of trouble - people take a lurid interest in this sort of thing even if they don't think there is anything wrong with it objectively. "OMFG, Billy is Gay?!" Its because it has to do with sex. Suppose the rumor was that Ron Livingston has a fantasy about having sex on top of a malfunctioning HP printer. Nothing wrong with that "per-say" but repeatedly attempting to inject that information into a wikipedia profile is obviously an attempt to embarrass Mr. Livingston. Furthermore, as Mr. Livingston is married there might be something wrong with that if he is also gay and dating a man, as this Wikipedia user has alleged. I think the fact that he felt he had to file a law suit over wikipedia edits that were likely quickly reverted is more interesting. Another example of why Wikitrust is necessary.
What if they called Ron Livingston a faggot? For instance, if I were to make the claim "Ron Livingston is a faggot", would that make him gay? What if I were to take a page out of the Fox News book of tricks and phrase it "Ron Livingston is a faggot? What if Ron Livingston was a faggot? Now I have no proof that he is, but wouldn't that be crazy. That Ron Livingston is a faggot." In this case, am I calling Ron Livingston gay or just implying that he is acting like a faggot? Am I defaming his character or asking important questions? At the end of the day, being called gay is probably better than the rumor that "Ron Livingston likes to get gang banged by migrant day laborers on a malfunctioning HP printer." Because I heard that rumor...
My apologies. I just realized that not everyone might have seen the South Park episode pertaining to the redefining of fag. May I present an awesome episode:
South Park - The F Word |
|
| | | |
RE: Calling some 'gay' defamation?
by Acidus at 4:03 pm EST, Dec 14, 2009 |
lonew0lf wrote: Decius wrote: Acidus wrote:
Its like saying "Tom Cross is such a woman!" Did I defame Tom? Only if being a woman is a bad thing.
I think its a matter of intent (you jerk). If you intended to damage someone's reputation perhaps its defamation even if objectively there is nothing wrong with the label. Clearly, outing someone as a homosexual can cause them a lot of trouble - people take a lurid interest in this sort of thing even if they don't think there is anything wrong with it objectively. "OMFG, Billy is Gay?!" Its because it has to do with sex. Suppose the rumor was that Ron Livingston has a fantasy about having sex on top of a malfunctioning HP printer. Nothing wrong with that "per-say" but repeatedly attempting to inject that information into a wikipedia profile is obviously an attempt to embarrass Mr. Livingston. Furthermore, as Mr. Livingston is married there might be something wrong with that if he is also gay and dating a man, as this Wikipedia user has alleged. I think the fact that he felt he had to file a law suit over wikipedia edits that were likely quickly reverted is more interesting. Another example of why Wikitrust is necessary.
What if they called Ron Livingston a faggot? For instance, if I were to make the claim "Ron Livingston is a faggot", would that make him gay? What if I were to take a page out of the Fox News book of tricks and phrase it "Ron Livingston is a faggot? What if Ron Livingston was a faggot? Now I have no proof that he is, but wouldn't that be crazy. That Ron Livingston is a faggot." In this case, am I calling Ron Livingston gay or just implying that he is acting like a faggot? Am I defaming his character or asking important questions? At the end of the day, being called gay is probably better than the rumor that "Ron Livingston likes to get gang banged by migrant day laborers on a malfunctioning HP printer." Because I heard that rumor...
I love you John Terrill. |
|
|
|
