Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue my rights to not associate with people who'll get me dragged into a lawsuit are at least as important as my rights to free speech.

View on HN

The point of contention here is whether the publisher should be liable in any lawsuit for non-defamatory speech. You are deliberately avoiding that point.

If that's the point of contention, maybe the article should talk a lot more about Britain's libel laws and the issues with them.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsu...

That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".

The article repeatedly references legal liability as a concern and nowhere does it blame a particular side of the political spectrum.

The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States. This article could be construed as being right leaning however I don't think that's the intent of the author.

> The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States.

Dog whistles? What "secret meaning" is meant to be conveyed?

> This article could be construed as being right leaning

I don't see how the article can be construed as "right leaning" as there is nothing conservative or liberal about supporting free speech and the value to listening to dissenting opinions.

Indeed, I think the desire to categorize arguments, article, positions or especially people as "conservative" or "liberal" rather than engaging with ideas on their merits is a distinctly negative trend that accelerates our descent into ineffectual partisan bickering. It means that anyone who takes the time to consider issues carefully and form their own opinion gets shut out as a "liberal" by the conservative and a "conservative" by the liberals. Thus the people who we should be paying the most attention to are the ones who get ignored.

The issue isn't Britain's libel laws. Britain has laws regulating "hate speech". Speech that might "incite racial hatred" is illegal under British law, completely independent of its libelousness.

Nobody is denying their right to do it. The question is whether publishers should operate in an environment where they're legally liable for the speech they choose to publish.

My opinion: A publisher who knowingly publishes libelous material should be on the hook.

My concurrent opinion: Britain's libel laws specifically are toxic and should be reformed.

Ya libel is in a different category, IMO. I completely agree libel should not be tolerated. But I don't think anyone is saying Flynn's book was libelous.

The glossed-over underlying issue in the linked article is that Britain's libel laws are notoriously hard to defend against. In the US, a comment has to be proven libelous; in the UK, you have to prove it isn't.

The letter from Emerald says this:

> There are two main causes of concern for Emerald.

[...]

> Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald.

This is talking about the risk of defamation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com