Isn't it illegal to call some one a name?

I remember when I was in middle school we were going over the laws, I remember hearing that it is legal to call a group or organization a name, but it is illegal to call a person a name.

I believe it was supported in the U.S. Constitution, but I forget what I read it from. I can't find much support on the internet right now.

Hopefully I'm remembering what I read right.

Example

Frederic Prince Von Anhalt, one of at least four contenders for Anna Nicole Smith’s baby, is suing Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox broadcast network over O’Reilly’s remarks that Von Anhalt was “a fraud” for claiming that he fathered young Dannielynn. A suit claiming defamation of character has been filed in Superior Court in Santa Monica. The suit is for the hefty sum of $10 million dollars.

Source

But if this is true, then it means some one is liable for lawsuit if they called you a domestic terrorist.

Sorry if this is in the wrong area, couldn't find a specific enough board.

Please correct me if you believe I'm wrong, people do your research.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Scarcer]

You're a loser. Just kidding!

There I just called you a name...

I am not arrested.

Could you please elaborate on what you meant so I don't walk away from this thread wondering what you are talking about?

It depends. If you are calling some one a "name" based on their race, then it is racism. I believe you would get arrested for it.

You misssed an important part of the article. The articles bylines says, "defamation of character".

So yes, if you "call someone a name" and it can be proven than doing so caused someone undue financial or emotional harm it is a crime.

But if I walk up to you on the street and quietly accuse you of being a fraud then you couldn't really claim defamation of character.

Vas

Yeah, racism is one thing. But I think you're allowed to call people names freely however you choose.

Now, are you thinking about the cyberbulling bill? Apparently that's supposed to limit free speech online.

I don't know. I thought it was in one of the amendments or Bill of Rights or something.

But I haven't read it in years. So possibly I'm wrong.


I'll have to do some reading.

You may be onto something here.

Calling someone a name in itself is not illegal. If you followed someone around calling them names then maybe you get into harassment and stalking issues. Defamation of character would be someone that says something against you that causes you loss, and to which was untrue. However, merely something said about you must be based around facts, not just opinions would not necessarily give rise to a claim of defamation of character. There have also been cases of defamation of character that involved true statements that were deemed as defamation. In those cases, people that had information about you that was true, but they had a legal requirement not to disseminate that information and they did so anyway.

As far as being called a domestic terrorist, they are going to have criteria that will be able to be articulated. If they get to gray on the description they could have some major issues. What that description would be is beyond me, but it certainly isn't ATS members questioning policy of our government, or anyone that has another opinion that isn't mainstream.



[edit on 23-5-2009 by ExPostFacto]

reply to post by Scarcer


Yeah it's not in the bill of rights.

The bill of rights are our inalienable rights... it's not something that stuff is added to.

You're thinking about our system of laws or whatever. Maybe a supreme court ruling?

If you call someone a name publicly, its

defamation of character. If i called you a name you'd just have to put up with it, or perhaps kick my @rs.
we dont have a character to defame.

There is a subtle difference between freedom of speech and slander. If you express an opinion arbitrarily it is protected. If you insinuate a falsehood that could hurt ones character based on fact, without provided proof, it is a violation. This is however my arbitrary comprehension of the law.

i.e. "You are a dumb white man". = Freedom of speech
The stupid white guy hates blacks = Slander

AAC

All depends on what is said and who it's said to and who hears it.

www.dancingwithlawyers.com...

Defamation of character is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend against a defamation lawsuit. If you don't feel like being on the frontier of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense. Add on these concepts:

Avoid the impression of malice.

State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This is a legal defense - and also keeps things clear in your mind.

All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, judgmental ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy - getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism - but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.

What defamation is not.
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.

Well I haven't found what I read yet but I'm still looking. I know it's in the laws some where. I remember going through it in class. My memory of it could be wrong but I know that something like I'm saying is in there.

Hm..

Well. Those guidelines issued to the police is in no way supported by 'the law'. So that in no way could be provided as proof that your a terrorist.

If my reasoning is correct that is....

Would this count?

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. National Origin Discrimination * It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.

Source

denpends on how you interpret it I guess.. maybe I looked to far into it when i first read it

I'll do more reading

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Scarcer]

Yeah never mind that one, I think i read it wrong the first time

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Scarcer]

Hmm. Well I'm trying to think of ways you can defend your self if you are labelled a terrorist.

If your spreading the truth and are labelled a terrorist because they don't like what your saying or they just don't like you? But would be hard to pull off.

Could it be libel some how if the government passes laws that "discriminate home grown terrorists?" I mean it would be worth a try, you could try going to court claiming the government is discriminating the people and breaking multiple laws. The supreme court can over rule these laws. (Please show me if people have already attempted this)

I believe if Obama does have laws passed allowing indefinite containment of suspect terrorists with out trial, you can take the Gov to court and accuse those responsible of breaking another law.

This is something that should of been started a long time ago. Please if some one has already attempted this, please show me.

Also, I'm sure it would help put the courts decisions in the publics favor if a mass of people are

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Scarcer]

Let's get to the unintended revelation.
That being recognized by any name without consent is illegal. Bam!
What's left is love.
From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1594:
JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by human8]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Yeah it's not in the bill of rights.

The bill of rights are our inalienable rights... it's not something that stuff is added to.

You're thinking about our system of laws or whatever. Maybe a supreme court ruling?

Actually, the constitution tells congress what it must do, not what it can't do. If it is not specifically listed in the constitution, then congress and the federal government has no right to do this. This is the 10th amendment, part of the bill of rights.

Now, the so called "general welfare clause" in Article 1, Section 8 is used today for things like welfare, education and healthcare. But that is not how it is supposed to be, thus why it's called a "loophole". What the general welfare clause is actually doing is giving the federal government permission to uphold and make sure those things are followed.

If you look in the constitution, "general welfare" appears 1 other time, and that is in the preamble. Which states that part of the constitution is to "promote the general welfare". And that part is obviously the amendments themselves, which can be added too.

So it's actually much more than just a "right". Rather than the way congress and such make laws as long as it doesn't go against those(supposedly), they are supposed to do the opposite. Ensure the states and local governments don't impose on those rights. That was supposed to be their basic and entire function. Not to manage peoples lives, but to ensure their rights were being given. Been turned upside down though starting with the general welfare loophole.

Btw, there is a proper way to add healthcare and such that would be constitutional. All they actually have to do is add an amendment. Then it is automatically applied to everyone equally, rather than to special interest groups using the loophole like today. Funny how when the constitution is followed properly things work out like that. Of course, not as easy to get an amendment, but that is the rule of law and it is not easy for a reason. Doesn't give people the right to create loopholes.

So much much more than just a right.

I think what the OP is talking about is slander, and that is illegal. That isn't going to apply to most people, and even where it does apply most don't pursue it. You have to prove that the person made a false claim, and that there were damages done as a result of that false claim.

Such things aren't handled on a federal level, so it would be a lower court. Many laws like that are meant to be dealt with locally, and then it's just the job of the federal courts to make sure the individuals rights were not infringed on. If you do those things in the federal courts, then there isn't anyone to insure the rights aren't being trampled on. So if it were to go to the supreme court, it would be an issue of if the listed rights are being followed or not. The supreme court is not supposed to ever make laws and such.

That's how it's supposed to be anyway, I can think of tons of examples where it's not followed as it's supposed to.

Well, I think you would be hard pressed to find some one who would be willing to presscharges for name calling, however I suppose if some one really wanted to , name calling could be classified as verbal abuse which is against the law.

Like I said though, Good luck finding someone who actually would go through the trouble of pressing charges and going to court etc.... all for being called a name.