You are supposed to present a way to objectively measure whether something is "similar enough" or "significantly different", and a rationale for that using that metric.
1. Measure: The statement is a lie. Rationale; Lies about a person are the killer of truth and knowledge and should be quashed everywhere. 2. Measure: The intent was to harm the target. Rationale; Intentionally harming someone else should be discourages. Please take both together.
But you seem to want to treat all cases of hurt feelings during a breakup as not worthy of rectification.
There might be but there has not been enough incidents in the past where it has caused a significant enough problem to make laws against it. On the other hand libel/slander has cause quite a lot of damage and therefore laws were written. Where I see you black and white issue is that you see free speech as absolute or nothing. Sorry but that is not the case.
n this week’s Nature Physics an international team, led by Oxford University scientists, report that a short pulse from the FLASH laser ‘knocked out’ a core electron from every aluminium atom in a sample without disrupting the metal’s crystalline structure. This turned the aluminium nearly invisible to extreme ultraviolet radiation.
Considering that most countries have a law against libel/slander that is an opinion not widely held at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not a revolutionary or extreme idea.
I think the idea that anyone can say anything they want anywhere they want regardless of the truth, harm or motivation behind the speech is an extreme idea. Yet another point we disagree on.
My argument is that they do more harm than good.
What harm is caused by restricting the spread of lies?
It is similar but not similar enough to be treated in the same way.
You simply saying "they're different" is not enough.
I didn't say "different" I said "significantly different". Dropping qualifiers does not help your cause.
Why is the harm caused by slander and libel worth allowing litigation, and not the harm created by a hurtful breakup?
Because the harm on those two situations is significantly different. Just like being accidentally pushed is treated differently than being deliberately punched in the face. The former is considered an accident and legal while the latter could be battery and illegal. Both time the person was physically contacted but he harm is significantly different and therefore the law is significantly different.
For example, do you see a benefit in allowing the KKK to have freedom of speech?
Yes, up to the point that they incite violence, hate and/or discrimination based on protected attributes such as race, religion, sexual preference, etc.
Do you see a benefit to allowing flag burning?
Yes as it does not cause significant harm to others.
should we have the "freedom of harmless speech" instead?
Yet again, the world is not as black and white as you seem to want it to be. There is a third option other than "completely free speech" and freedom of harmless speech". I would rephrase your statement to the following;
freedom of speech that does not cause significant harm to others
Considering there are very few categories that fall into "speech that causes significant harm to others", the definition if which had been refined over centuries of Common Law, I see that as a workable option. You don't and seeing you presenting only two option is getting tiresome. To you "completely free speech" is the only definition for "free speech". I disagree. Again you are hung up on a principle rather than reality.
There is no significant similarity between breaking up and libel/slander. Since there is nothing significantly similar using breaking up as an argument in a free speech discussion is not valid.
Why is it much worse? You must have a reason for that opinion. The only one I can seem to see is that the principle of free speech is more important than the real harm done by people who spread lies about other people. Sorry but some times principles need to be tempered by reality.
What I am saying is that *speech* should always be legal
You have already contradicted yourself by saying that throwing a burning flag at someone is speech that should not be protected. Your "always" does not fly even with you.
It doesn't matter from a legal sense that your feelings were hurt because the right of free association is a higher priority.
In the case of libel/slander a person's right not to be publicly maligned overrides the lair's right to freedom of speech. Yes it does not say there is a right not to be maligned in the constitution but you should look at the Ninth Amendment. All rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.
I think you really need to learn more about logical fallacies if you are going to invoke them so frivolously.
Sorry, you are correct it is not a straw man but a false equivelance as there is no equivalence between libel/slander and dumping someone. The former is a public act of deception while the latter is exercising the right of freedom of association.
Yet you think throwing a burning flag at someone should not be allowed under freedom of speech. You have now defined three categoires, Comlpere free speech, Free speech without throwing burning flags, and "so much worse". By you own admission there are more than 2 categories of free speech. Your line is different than mine and different than every Common Law based society.
My argument is essentially that freedom of speech should not be considered freedom of speech if it has exceptions for slander and libel which are clearly speech.
You have stated your opinion quite clearly but you have not stated why. Calling it "much worse" is not a reason; it is another opinion.
If maintaining a particular job or winning an election were a right, I would say this is a pretty good reason to try to rectify a situation that lead to someone losing that right.
Libel/slander laws are the means to rectify the situation. Having a court rule that a defendant lied is very powerful in clearing a plaintiff's name.
I think part of the job of raising children to be adults is to make them mature enough not to ridicule others simply based on a suggestion.
That would be nice but that is not what laws are meant for. There will always be people who do not follow acceptable behaviour and there needs to be legal consequences.
I am saying we *should* treat slander and libel the same as we treat hurt feelings when people are dumped (i.e. with anarchy).
We disagree as hurt feelings when people are dumped are very different than libel/slander. It is similar to the difference between someone shoving someone causing no physical harm and murder.
It is not a straw man. It is just an example I was suing to illustrate my point.
It does not illustrate your point as it is completely different than the situation we are talking about and therefore a straw man
The argument I am making is that "freedom of speech" implies "unfettered freedom of speech"
That is your opinion which I and many other disagree with.
So yes all rights have limits, I am disagreeing with you over what the appropriate limit is.
Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as you have shown no valid reason why libel/slander should be allowed while throwing burning flags at others is not. Your line is different than mine and I doubt it will ever change.
We had a long history of slavery too, and plenty of case law regarding defining proper slavery practices. The fact that something has been around for a long time does not make it good.
That is another straw man. While slavery was common practice in the past laws have been passed to stop the practice. I was referring to common law to refute your idea that the definition of libel/slander is based on a single situation.
I am advocating for a system based on the rule of law (rather than opinion), in which momentary changes in public opinion are not enough to change how justice is administered.
This is where you ignore the precedent system used by our system of laws. Laws are not as black and white as you may think. They are interpreted by the courts and these interpretations become precedents. These precedents are then used in future similar cases. That is why rulings from courts like SCOTUS are so important because those rulings are the ultimate precedent. You really need to understand how the legal system works. It is not as variable as you seem to think.
It is interesting that the article makes several claims but does not back thest claims up by referring to the draft. Here is a quote from the draft that seems to contradict some of the claims about availability of medicine;
The Parties have reached the following understandings regarding this Chapter:
The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health-{by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.} Accordingly, while reiterating their commitment to this Chapter, the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.
In recognition of the commitment to access to medicines that are supplied in accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540) and the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82), as well as the Decision on the Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, adopted by the General Council, 6 December 2005 and the WTO General Council Chairperson's statement accompanying the Decision (WT/GC/M/100) (collectively, the “TRIPS/health solution”), this Chapter does not and should not prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health solution.
Sorry but the world is not as black and whit as you seem to want it to be. I said nothing about harm caused by a breakup. What about losing a job or an election? What about creating a target for ridicule by other children at school? Some harm does not merit compensation. Some does. The difference is determined by legal precident and the courts.
We have decided collectively that we are better off with anarchy in this specific area.
We have also decided collectivly through Common Law precidents, that we are not better off with anarchy on the areas of libel and slander.
By the way your "create a society where every time you dumped someone" argument is a straw man as I never said all harm needs to be compensated.
Or maybe it's not libelous if it was a joke, or a quote of what someone else said, or a myriad of other subjectively assessed reasons.
All of which would be worked out through precedents and the courts. You presented two options; Complete free speech or something "so much worse" than free speech. I say that there is a third option; limited free speech which in my opinion is better than completely free speech as it limits the damage caused by lies. Since it does not fall in the category of "so much worse" and it is not completely free speech it does is not covered by your two choices therefore you presented a false dilemma.
Either we have unfettered freedom of speech, or we do not. This is true.
You are correct but where does it say "unfettered freedom of speech" in the US Constitution? As far as I can tell it just says "free speech". It also says "freedom of association" when most conditions of parole state that the parolee can not associate with known criminals. All rights have limits. Also, since this is a civil suit not a criminal suit, where does it say one is free from liability for the damage caused by that speech.
The right to popular speech doesn't need to be protected.
That is correct but the right to lie and cause damage to someone else is not, and should not be, protected.
I am saying that these laws do degrade the freedom of speech to "the freedom of non-libelous and non-slanderous speech as determined by hundreds of years of Common Law and a large number of judges and elected officials".
FTFY. Libel and slander laws have been around for a very long time and there is plenty of case law to define exactly what it is and is not.
I am also not saying that speech is never bad. I am saying that the "cure" for bad speech of degrading freedom of speech is worse than the disease.
That is your opinion and, thankfully, an opinion held only by a few.
Is there anything truly gained by forcing people to premise every potentially libelous statement with an "I think" or an "I heard someone else say" in order to avoid litigation?
Such premises may not even protect the speaker. What is or is not a libelous statement is worked out in the courts. Whether someone wsays "I think he is an idiot" or "he is an idiot" both are generally accepted as opinion. On the other hand, if the statement was "he has an IQ of 50" would be libelous if it was not true.
Is it worth giving up the right to freedom of speech for something so much worse?
Again, that is a false dilemma. Freedom of speech with reasonable limitations is very far from no freedom od speech. It is definitely worth giving up the right to publish lies so that there can be recourse for people harmed by them.
I think having slander and libel laws, especially in the 21st century, attempts and fails miserably to create a environment where public information can/should be trusted by virtue of the fact that it is published.
Too bad that is not the objective of libel and slander laws. The objective is to create a deterrence for posting those lies.
If no one expects information found on the internet to be true, then people will be far less likely to be harmed when it turns out to be false.
Notice that you said "far less likely to be harmed" which means that some people will be harmed by these lies. How do those people get compensation for that harm?
Also we can save our society a lot of waste by avoiding all the unnecessary slander and libel litigation and instead have all these would-be lawyers doing something more productive with their lives.
Without libel and slander laws such lies will become much more commonplace. There will be much more time wasted trying to counter the lies than is ever taken up in libel/slander suites.
Having freedom of speech kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than living in North Korea.
In terms of logic that statement is a false dilemma. You propose that that are only two choices; complete lack of free speech or completely unfettered free speech. That is not true. There is a third option which is the one that is generally followed by most countries. That is where speech is free except in a few well defined categories. Libel and slander are two such categories.
It must be nice to never be effected by the statements of others. Libelous statements can effect carriers, political office, social interactions, etc. Why should someone be able to publish lies about someone else? Please note the difference between a negative opinion and a lie. For example, "I think he is an idiot" is an opinion while "He diddle small children" is a lie if he didn't actually do it.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I said there may be other factors as well. I am just trying to point out that blaming the thinning of the brain on one factor is not scientifically supported by this study.
Care to cite any studies that support that statement? Here is a link to a list of studies and the conclusion is that the jury is still out on the effects of iron on ADHD.
The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school.
It probably started on the school ground where the children met and will continue on the school grounds where the children will interact every day.
We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.
Do you really want a 7th grader hauled off to juvenile court for posting a Facebook page when it can much more easily be solved within the school? A school's job is education and educating a student that online bullying is withing that purview. The schools are focusing on what happens on school grounds as Facebook bullying leads directly to school grounds bullying.
Schools are involved because they are less intrusive than juvenile court. Mediation between families by a neutral school official can be very helpful. Many of these issues can be kept out of the courts unless the parents are negligent.
Nice rant, too bad it is off topic. The main point being that this is a civil suit and not a criminal case therefore the parents can not go to jail. Secondly the issue is not what the child did but what the parents failed to do. In this instance the parents were told about the issue and did nothing about it. That is the negligence that they are responsible for. Notice that the judge specifically denied liability for the child creating the site as the parents had no control over that.
I am just glad that most countries disagree with you. Libel and slander has been in Common Law for centuries and I doubt it will ever change.
Sanction the believers who act, not the preacher who speaks.
How do you sanction someone who decides not to vote for a candidate due to the lies posted about the candidate? How about the people who shun the citizen due to the lies making him out to be a pedophile? Most time the actions of the believers are not sanctionable but they still harm the person libeled.
Slashdot Mirror
You are supposed to present a way to objectively measure whether something is "similar enough" or "significantly different", and a rationale for that using that metric.
1. Measure: The statement is a lie. Rationale; Lies about a person are the killer of truth and knowledge and should be quashed everywhere.
2. Measure: The intent was to harm the target. Rationale; Intentionally harming someone else should be discourages.
Please take both together.
But you seem to want to treat all cases of hurt feelings during a breakup as not worthy of rectification.
There might be but there has not been enough incidents in the past where it has caused a significant enough problem to make laws against it. On the other hand libel/slander has cause quite a lot of damage and therefore laws were written.
Where I see you black and white issue is that you see free speech as absolute or nothing. Sorry but that is not the case.
n this week’s Nature Physics an international team, led by Oxford University scientists, report that a short pulse from the FLASH laser ‘knocked out’ a core electron from every aluminium atom in a sample without disrupting the metal’s crystalline structure. This turned the aluminium nearly invisible to extreme ultraviolet radiation.
The aluminum is still opaque to visible light.
They are not essential to a functioning society.
Considering that most countries have a law against libel/slander that is an opinion not widely held at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not a revolutionary or extreme idea.
I think the idea that anyone can say anything they want anywhere they want regardless of the truth, harm or motivation behind the speech is an extreme idea. Yet another point we disagree on.
My argument is that they do more harm than good.
What harm is caused by restricting the spread of lies?
The similarity is that it is harmful to people.
It is similar but not similar enough to be treated in the same way.
You simply saying "they're different" is not enough.
I didn't say "different" I said "significantly different". Dropping qualifiers does not help your cause.
Why is the harm caused by slander and libel worth allowing litigation, and not the harm created by a hurtful breakup?
Because the harm on those two situations is significantly different. Just like being accidentally pushed is treated differently than being deliberately punched in the face. The former is considered an accident and legal while the latter could be battery and illegal. Both time the person was physically contacted but he harm is significantly different and therefore the law is significantly different.
Again, the world is not black and white.
For example, do you see a benefit in allowing the KKK to have freedom of speech?
Yes, up to the point that they incite violence, hate and/or discrimination based on protected attributes such as race, religion, sexual preference, etc.
Do you see a benefit to allowing flag burning?
Yes as it does not cause significant harm to others.
should we have the "freedom of harmless speech" instead?
Yet again, the world is not as black and white as you seem to want it to be. There is a third option other than "completely free speech" and freedom of harmless speech". I would rephrase your statement to the following;
freedom of speech that does not cause significant harm to others
Considering there are very few categories that fall into "speech that causes significant harm to others", the definition if which had been refined over centuries of Common Law, I see that as a workable option. You don't and seeing you presenting only two option is getting tiresome. To you "completely free speech" is the only definition for "free speech". I disagree. Again you are hung up on a principle rather than reality.
It only draws a similarity in one respect.
There is no significant similarity between breaking up and libel/slander. Since there is nothing significantly similar using breaking up as an argument in a free speech discussion is not valid.
Why is it much worse? You must have a reason for that opinion. The only one I can seem to see is that the principle of free speech is more important than the real harm done by people who spread lies about other people. Sorry but some times principles need to be tempered by reality.
What I am saying is that *speech* should always be legal
You have already contradicted yourself by saying that throwing a burning flag at someone is speech that should not be protected. Your "always" does not fly even with you.
It doesn't matter from a legal sense that your feelings were hurt because the right of free association is a higher priority.
In the case of libel/slander a person's right not to be publicly maligned overrides the lair's right to freedom of speech. Yes it does not say there is a right not to be maligned in the constitution but you should look at the Ninth Amendment. All rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.
I think you really need to learn more about logical fallacies if you are going to invoke them so frivolously.
Sorry, you are correct it is not a straw man but a false equivelance as there is no equivalence between libel/slander and dumping someone. The former is a public act of deception while the latter is exercising the right of freedom of association.
Yet you think throwing a burning flag at someone should not be allowed under freedom of speech. You have now defined three categoires, Comlpere free speech, Free speech without throwing burning flags, and "so much worse". By you own admission there are more than 2 categories of free speech. Your line is different than mine and different than every Common Law based society.
My argument is essentially that freedom of speech should not be considered freedom of speech if it has exceptions for slander and libel which are clearly speech.
You have stated your opinion quite clearly but you have not stated why. Calling it "much worse" is not a reason; it is another opinion.
If maintaining a particular job or winning an election were a right, I would say this is a pretty good reason to try to rectify a situation that lead to someone losing that right.
Libel/slander laws are the means to rectify the situation. Having a court rule that a defendant lied is very powerful in clearing a plaintiff's name.
I think part of the job of raising children to be adults is to make them mature enough not to ridicule others simply based on a suggestion.
That would be nice but that is not what laws are meant for. There will always be people who do not follow acceptable behaviour and there needs to be legal consequences.
I am saying we *should* treat slander and libel the same as we treat hurt feelings when people are dumped (i.e. with anarchy).
We disagree as hurt feelings when people are dumped are very different than libel/slander. It is similar to the difference between someone shoving someone causing no physical harm and murder.
It is not a straw man. It is just an example I was suing to illustrate my point.
It does not illustrate your point as it is completely different than the situation we are talking about and therefore a straw man
The argument I am making is that "freedom of speech" implies "unfettered freedom of speech"
That is your opinion which I and many other disagree with.
So yes all rights have limits, I am disagreeing with you over what the appropriate limit is.
Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as you have shown no valid reason why libel/slander should be allowed while throwing burning flags at others is not. Your line is different than mine and I doubt it will ever change.
We had a long history of slavery too, and plenty of case law regarding defining proper slavery practices. The fact that something has been around for a long time does not make it good.
That is another straw man. While slavery was common practice in the past laws have been passed to stop the practice. I was referring to common law to refute your idea that the definition of libel/slander is based on a single situation.
I am advocating for a system based on the rule of law (rather than opinion), in which momentary changes in public opinion are not enough to change how justice is administered.
This is where you ignore the precedent system used by our system of laws. Laws are not as black and white as you may think. They are interpreted by the courts and these interpretations become precedents. These precedents are then used in future similar cases. That is why rulings from courts like SCOTUS are so important because those rulings are the ultimate precedent. You really need to understand how the legal system works. It is not as variable as you seem to think.
It is interesting that the article makes several claims but does not back thest claims up by referring to the draft. Here is a quote from the draft that seems to contradict some of the claims about availability of medicine;
The Parties have reached the following understandings regarding this Chapter:
The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health-{by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.} Accordingly, while reiterating their commitment to this Chapter, the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.
In recognition of the commitment to access to medicines that are supplied in accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540) and the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82), as well as the Decision on the Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, adopted by the General Council, 6 December 2005 and the WTO General Council Chairperson's statement accompanying the Decision (WT/GC/M/100) (collectively, the “TRIPS/health solution”), this Chapter does not and should not prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health solution.
Sorry but the world is not as black and whit as you seem to want it to be. I said nothing about harm caused by a breakup. What about losing a job or an election? What about creating a target for ridicule by other children at school? Some harm does not merit compensation. Some does. The difference is determined by legal precident and the courts.
We have decided collectively that we are better off with anarchy in this specific area.
We have also decided collectivly through Common Law precidents, that we are not better off with anarchy on the areas of libel and slander.
By the way your "create a society where every time you dumped someone" argument is a straw man as I never said all harm needs to be compensated.
Or maybe it's not libelous if it was a joke, or a quote of what someone else said, or a myriad of other subjectively assessed reasons.
All of which would be worked out through precedents and the courts.
You presented two options; Complete free speech or something "so much worse" than free speech. I say that there is a third option; limited free speech which in my opinion is better than completely free speech as it limits the damage caused by lies. Since it does not fall in the category of "so much worse" and it is not completely free speech it does is not covered by your two choices therefore you presented a false dilemma.
Either we have unfettered freedom of speech, or we do not. This is true.
You are correct but where does it say "unfettered freedom of speech" in the US Constitution? As far as I can tell it just says "free speech". It also says "freedom of association" when most conditions of parole state that the parolee can not associate with known criminals. All rights have limits. Also, since this is a civil suit not a criminal suit, where does it say one is free from liability for the damage caused by that speech.
The right to popular speech doesn't need to be protected.
That is correct but the right to lie and cause damage to someone else is not, and should not be, protected.
I am saying that these laws do degrade the freedom of speech to "the freedom of non-libelous and non-slanderous speech as determined by hundreds of years of Common Law and a large number of judges and elected officials".
FTFY. Libel and slander laws have been around for a very long time and there is plenty of case law to define exactly what it is and is not.
I am also not saying that speech is never bad. I am saying that the "cure" for bad speech of degrading freedom of speech is worse than the disease.
That is your opinion and, thankfully, an opinion held only by a few.
Is there anything truly gained by forcing people to premise every potentially libelous statement with an "I think" or an "I heard someone else say" in order to avoid litigation?
Such premises may not even protect the speaker. What is or is not a libelous statement is worked out in the courts. Whether someone wsays "I think he is an idiot" or "he is an idiot" both are generally accepted as opinion. On the other hand, if the statement was "he has an IQ of 50" would be libelous if it was not true.
Is it worth giving up the right to freedom of speech for something so much worse?
Again, that is a false dilemma. Freedom of speech with reasonable limitations is very far from no freedom od speech. It is definitely worth giving up the right to publish lies so that there can be recourse for people harmed by them.
I think having slander and libel laws, especially in the 21st century, attempts and fails miserably to create a environment where public information can/should be trusted by virtue of the fact that it is published.
Too bad that is not the objective of libel and slander laws. The objective is to create a deterrence for posting those lies.
If no one expects information found on the internet to be true, then people will be far less likely to be harmed when it turns out to be false.
Notice that you said "far less likely to be harmed" which means that some people will be harmed by these lies. How do those people get compensation for that harm?
Also we can save our society a lot of waste by avoiding all the unnecessary slander and libel litigation and instead have all these would-be lawyers doing something more productive with their lives.
Without libel and slander laws such lies will become much more commonplace. There will be much more time wasted trying to counter the lies than is ever taken up in libel/slander suites.
Having freedom of speech kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than living in North Korea.
In terms of logic that statement is a false dilemma. You propose that that are only two choices; complete lack of free speech or completely unfettered free speech. That is not true. There is a third option which is the one that is generally followed by most countries. That is where speech is free except in a few well defined categories. Libel and slander are two such categories.
It must be nice to never be effected by the statements of others. Libelous statements can effect carriers, political office, social interactions, etc. Why should someone be able to publish lies about someone else? Please note the difference between a negative opinion and a lie. For example, "I think he is an idiot" is an opinion while "He diddle small children" is a lie if he didn't actually do it.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I said there may be other factors as well. I am just trying to point out that blaming the thinning of the brain on one factor is not scientifically supported by this study.
Care to cite any studies that support that statement? Here is a link to a list of studies and the conclusion is that the jury is still out on the effects of iron on ADHD.
The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school.
It probably started on the school ground where the children met and will continue on the school grounds where the children will interact every day.
We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.
Do you really want a 7th grader hauled off to juvenile court for posting a Facebook page when it can much more easily be solved within the school? A school's job is education and educating a student that online bullying is withing that purview. The schools are focusing on what happens on school grounds as Facebook bullying leads directly to school grounds bullying.
Schools are involved because they are less intrusive than juvenile court. Mediation between families by a neutral school official can be very helpful. Many of these issues can be kept out of the courts unless the parents are negligent.
Nice rant, too bad it is off topic. The main point being that this is a civil suit and not a criminal case therefore the parents can not go to jail. Secondly the issue is not what the child did but what the parents failed to do.
In this instance the parents were told about the issue and did nothing about it. That is the negligence that they are responsible for. Notice that the judge specifically denied liability for the child creating the site as the parents had no control over that.
I am just glad that most countries disagree with you. Libel and slander has been in Common Law for centuries and I doubt it will ever change.
Sanction the believers who act, not the preacher who speaks.
How do you sanction someone who decides not to vote for a candidate due to the lies posted about the candidate? How about the people who shun the citizen due to the lies making him out to be a pedophile? Most time the actions of the believers are not sanctionable but they still harm the person libeled.