Growth of the online community, standards of moderation, feedback on both the content and the technicalities of the site, related announcements.
On Free Speech and Defamation - Exercising caution with controversial topics
Madhava - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:39:30 +0530
Aside considerations of what befits a Vaishnava, I would like to post in notes on what is legally permissible within the boundaries of free speech. Most ISP's (Internet Service Providers) provide you with TOS (Terms of Service) or AUP (Acceptable Use Policy), the breach of which makes your account subject to termination. They will frequently say something like this:
| QUOTE |
Defamation:
Defamatory speech distributed over the Internet can result in civil liability for the defamer. |
Or this:
| QUOTE |
| User may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind. |
On defamation, drawing from the 6th Edition of Business Law Today by Roger Miller and Gaylord Jentz, as posted at WebHostingTalk.Com (emphasis mine, slightly edited):
| QUOTE |
Defamation of character involves wrongfully hurting a person's good reputation. The law has imposed a general duty on all persons to refrain from making false, defamatory statements about others. Breaching this duty orally involves the tort of slander; breaching it in writing involves the tort of libel.
The tort of defamation also arises when a false statement is made about a person's product, business, or title to property.
There is a publication requirement: The basis of this tort is the publication of a statement or statements that hold an individual up to contempt, ridicule, or hatred. Publication means that the defamatory statements are communicated to persons other then the defamed party.
However, the absolute defense to this tort is if it's a statement of truth. You can't sue someone for defamation if what they are saying is true. However, if it's not true and you can prove it, and prove some kinds of damages caused by such defamation, then that would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Defamatory statements made via the Internet are are also actionable. An individual repeating or publishing defamatory statements made by another would be liable even if he/she notes the source.
Statements must be made with actual malice. In other words they must be made with either knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The burden or proof is on the one bringing the lawsuit. You must prove that the statements were false and that there was actual malice. Priviledged statements are protected in such matters. |
The short of it, translating into forum behavior, is that you cannot accuse others of being [whatever] or having done [whatever] unless you are able to prove your statement in a reasonable manner.
The forums have in fact been pleasantly civil lately, but a reminder is never out of place. So, in addition to such statements being harmful for your spiritual growth, they may also result in civil liabilities. Therefore, exercise caution whenever you comment on a controversial issue.
gopidust - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:04:46 +0530
If only I had known this before!
babu - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:05:05 +0530
Duly noted. It is a vaisnava quality though to lavish excess praise upon another devotee as the vaisnava is only seeing the good in another. Has that been much of a problem?
Madhava - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:12:38 +0530
| QUOTE (babu @ Sep 2 2004, 12:35 AM) |
| Duly noted. It is a vaisnava quality though to lavish excess praise upon another devotee as the vaisnava is only seeing the good in another. Has that been much of a problem? |
Hmm... I don't think you would get sued for that!
Of course we also need to be careful in praising a Vaishnava. If truly the prolonged praise brings about inconvenience to the Vaishnava, we may consider whether we are primarily concerned with service to him or for our own salvation through his praise.
Generally people don't seem to be burdened with an ability for lavish praise though, except when employed in glorifying someone over or to the exclusion of others.
Praise should always be grounded in the truth. Overly exaggerated praise is not good.
Elpis - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:55:23 +0530
| QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 1 2004, 06:42 PM) |
| Praise should always be grounded in the truth. Overly exaggerated praise is not good. |
PRthu's words in BhAgavata-purANa 4.15.22-26 may be of interest in this discussion.
nabadip - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:02:33 +0530
| QUOTE (Elpis @ Sep 2 2004, 02:25 AM) |
| QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 1 2004, 06:42 PM) | | Praise should always be grounded in the truth. Overly exaggerated praise is not good. |
PRthu's words in BhAgavata-purANa 4.15.22-26 may be of interest in this discussion.
|
Please, be so kind and quote them here.
Elpis - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:29:03 +0530
| QUOTE (nabadip @ Sep 2 2004, 10:32 AM) |
| QUOTE (Elpis @ Sep 2 2004, 02:25 AM) | | QUOTE (Madhava @ Sep 1 2004, 06:42 PM) | | Praise should always be grounded in the truth. Overly exaggerated praise is not good. |
PRthu's words in BhAgavata-purANa 4.15.22-26 may be of interest in this discussion.
|
Please, be so kind and quote them here. |
Very well. I do not have much time on my hands, so I will give you Tagare's translation and omit the Sanskrit.
| QUOTE |
22. Oh SUta! Oh MAgadha! Oh gentle Bandin! What is the basis of your panegyric of me whose qualities are yet to be manifested in the world? You should address it to me when my merits will be acknowledged by the public. Your words of praise in my case should not prove untrue.
23.Oh bards of sweet words! Therefore, after a lapse of some time (when we perform some exploits worth singing). you may compose as many panegyrics about my glory as you like. But when praise-worthy attributes of Lord Hari of excellent glory are there for glorification, good people do not eulogise ordinary (contemptible) men (like me).
24. What man with the capability of acquiring high merits will allow the bards to sing of qualities that are actually non-existent in him? The dullard who fools himself that those (non-existent) virtues may be manifest in him (later), does not see that he becomes thereby a butt of public ridicule.
25. Really competent persons and illustrious persons abhor the praise (even though they possess the qualities so praised, and are known for them). Truly modest and noble-minded persons shrink from praise of their uncomplimentary show of valour.
26. Oh bard! We are still unknown in this world for the performance of any exploit. (As we have not performed any great deed which can be extolled), how can we, like fools, allow you to sing of our glory. |
Jagat - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:36:30 +0530
Looks like Mr. Tagare could have had a native English speaker look over his translations.
Here is the BBT version (posted without looking)
SB 4.15.22: King Pṛthu said: O gentle sūta, māgadha and other devotee offering prayers, the qualities of which you have spoken are not distinct in me. Why then should you praise me for all these qualities when I do not shelter these features? I do not wish for these words meant for me to go in vain, but it is better that they be offered to someone else.
SB 4.15.23: O gentle reciters, offer such prayers in due course of time, when the qualities of which you have spoken actually manifest themselves in me. The gentle who offer prayers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead do not attribute such qualities to a human being, who does not actually have them.
SB 4.15.24: How could an intelligent man competent enough to possess such exalted qualities allow his followers to praise him if he did not actually have them? Praising a man by saying that if he were educated he might have become a great scholar or great personality is nothing but a process of cheating. A foolish person who agrees to accept such praise does not know that such words simply insult him.
SB 4.15.25: As a person with a sense of honor and magnanimity does not like to hear about his abominable actions, a person who is very famous and powerful does not like to hear himself praised.
SB 4.15.26: King Pṛthu continued: My dear devotees, headed by the sūta, just now I am not very famous for my personal activities because I have not done anything praiseworthy you could glorify. Therefore how could I engage you in praising my activities exactly like children?
For those who want, I am attaching the relevant portion of the chapter with three commentaries plus anvaya.
Elpis - Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:50:58 +0530
| QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 2 2004, 02:06 PM) |
| Looks like Mr. Tagare could have had a native English speaker look over his translations. |
Yes indeed! At the list of chapters in vol. 4 (containing Book 10), we find the following chapter title:
| QUOTE |
| 22. Coward-maids pray to KAtyAyanI--KRSNa's carrying away their garments |
Anyway, his is the translation that I have handy. I prefer it to the BBT translation, even if the English is not perfect.
Jagat - Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:51:48 +0530
The BBT translation ain't that great either, judging from the above five verses. "the qualities of which you have spoken are not distinct in me" "I don't shelter these features," etc.
babu - Fri, 03 Sep 2004 01:30:46 +0530
Taking Prthu's advice, it sounds like we shouldn't praise highly Mr. Tagare or the BBT translators.
Talasiga - Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:34:48 +0530
Defamation is a very complex tort.Even a true statement may be defamatory. It has to do with context of publication (how, where and to whom the statement is made), intention of the publisher (ie the intention of the person making the statement) and the question of relevance.