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.
