Split: Libel Law

[Jedi Master Spock]

And the insults that are thrown on an internet board, unless they actually threaten a person's well-being, isn't illegal, and really isn't worth the hassle a lawsuit would create.

Internet is a public medium. More people worldwide can read, what he has written about some people [2] [3] [4], who have sometimes nothing do to with him, in internet, as if he would have written it in a local paper. His behaviour is not only illegal in Germany, it is even a criminal offence [§§ 185 ff. StGB]. If such insults would be uncommon, I wouldn't say anything. But if you look at his posts, you will notice, that many posts of him are nothing but insulting and don't include "objective and truthful" arguments [see below].

For the record here, libel and defamation statutes do apply to material published online. While prosecution is fairly rare - since most people are, as Preaothmin suggests, unwilling to sue over something as trivial as someone insulting their character online - it does happen and the same standards are applied. Precedent is still squeaky new for carrying on internet libel cases across national borders (see particularly Gutnick v Dow Jones), but in general, the standards for libel and defamation are similar across states making use of English common law (the US, Canada, Australia, etc).

Defamation tends to be defined fairly simply, e.g.,:

(Defamation is where) a shameful action is attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character (he is dishonest), a shameful course of action (he lives on the avails of prostitution), (or) a shameful condition (he has smallpox). Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the man named into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition (of defamation) is words tending to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Emphasis added, see here for discussion of Canadian defamation law. As I understand it, if someone brings the matter to court shows that the standards for defamation are met in the perfectly ordinary sense that they might for an article in a newspaper, the options for an effective legal defense are quite limited.

On the plus side for those facing legal threats, the statute of limitations is usually fairly short for cases of libel, slander, and defamation - usually between 6 weeks and 3 years.

And yes, "Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner" is an applicable standard for someone invoking their credentials as an engineer online, but I haven't seen many professional censures come out of online flamewars.

[Praeothmin]

Who is like God arbour wrote:

That are only quotations from one single thread. You will notice, that he makes insulting statements about persons, from which he knows nothing.

Nobody minds, if he states his opinion and substantiate it with his expert knowledge in an objective and truthful manner. But that's not, what he does. He commits criminal offences. And that is not OK.

And if I outline his behaviour with concret quotations and links to these and summarize his behaviour under the elements of an criminal offence in an objective and truthful manner, is it not a libel.

It's from my profession exactly what he should do in his profession.

Ok, so JMS corrected me by posting:

Defamation tends to be defined fairly simply, e.g.,:
Murphy v LaMarsh wrote:
(Defamation is where) a shameful action is attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character (he is dishonest), a shameful course of action (he lives on the avails of prostitution), (or) a shameful condition (he has smallpox). Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the man named into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition (of defamation) is words tending to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Emphasis added, see here for discussion of Canadian defamation law. As I understand it, if someone brings the matter to court shows that the standards for defamation are met in the perfectly ordinary sense that they might for an article in a newspaper, the options for an effective legal defense are quite limited.

But, once again, what do I care what Mike Wong thinks of me (I do feel included in his insults because I do not believe all his conclusions, agree with many here, and I post here regularly)?
Although I don't have an Engineering degree, I do have a Technical Degree in Telecommunications (basically, I can work on Transmission equipment, circuit boards (which I have), networking (which I have a little), Fiber optics (which I do now)).
And while not being a genious, I am also far from an imbecile, and am very good at what I do.
Why?
Because I don't accept conclusions made by others at face value, except when I can't verify them myself, or when the person who came up with the conlcusion has a reputation for honesty.

So, how do I feel about Mike's posts on what a bunch of morons and imbeciles with fake diplomas we are?
Well, I know my diploma is valid, and I really don't care about what a guy from an internet board, that I will probably never meet in my life, has to say about it.

I debate for fun.
I debate only about the facets that I find interesting in the vs debate.
And that's how I'll continue to debate for the rest of my life.

I'm only in this for the fun of it...
What about you guys? :)

[Who is like God arbour]

German Law is different from Anglo-American Law.
As I have said, would Mike Wong lives in Germany, he would have a serious problem. In the German criminal code are three several elements of a crime offence for libel.

libel: (§ 185 StGB - Beleidigung)
Is the the behaviour or announcement against a person, which shows, that the person is not respected in its personal rights.

defamation: (§ 186 StGB - Üble Nachrede)
Is the divulgement of facts, which are able to make another person contemptible, if these facts can't be proven as true.

slander: (§ 187 StGB - Verleumdung)
Is the divlugement of facts about a person from someone, who knows, that these are untrue, if these facts are able to make another person contemptible.

libel despite proof of the truth (§ 192 StGB - Beleidigung trotz Wahrheitsbeweises)
The divulgement of facts, which can be proven as true, are nevertheless a libel, if from the circumstances in which the facts was divulged can be concluded, that the purpose was to show, that the person is not respected in its personal rights.

• (loose translation from me)

In Germany, we have no case-law. It is no problem to charge such criminal offences, if it can be summarized under these elements of the criminal offences. There are already many sentences because libel in internet.

So, how do I feel about Mike's posts on what a bunch of morons and imbeciles with fake diplomas we are?
Well, I know my diploma is valid, and I really don't care about what a guy from an internet board, that I will probably never meet in my life, has to say about it.

I debate for fun.
I debate only about the facets that I find interesting in the vs debate.
And that's how I'll continue to debate for the rest of my life.

I'm only in this for the fun of it...
What about you guys? :)

I also debate only for fun.
But you can loose your fun, if there are persons, who show you, that they don't respect your personal rights and deliberately divulge lies about you.
It's irrelevant, if you yourself know, that they aren't true. The insulted usually knows always, that the divulged lies aren't true. It is nevertheless insulting and a criminal offence.

I think, that such an attitude is responsible for the bad behaviour, shown from some SDN members. If such behaviour would charged before a criminal court, it would stop or at least abate. A german engineer wouldn't act this way because he knows, that he could get many problems (or he hopes to stay anonym).

[Ted C]

German Law is different from Anglo-American Law.

*snip*

But you can loose your fun, if there are persons, who show you, that they don't respect your personal rights and deliberately divulge lies about you.
It's irrelevant, if you yourself know, that they aren't true. The insulted usually knows always, that the divulged lies aren't true. It is nevertheless insulting and a criminal offence.

Its a crime to insult someone in Germany?

Glad I don't live there. I'll keep my freedom of speech, thank you: there's a difference between libel/slander and an insult.

EDIT: I doubt that anything Mike has ever said would qualify as libel even by the standard you describe.

[Who is like God arbour]

German Law is different from Anglo-American Law.

*snip*

But you can loose your fun, if there are persons, who show you, that they don't respect your personal rights and deliberately divulge lies about you.
It's irrelevant, if you yourself know, that they aren't true. The insulted usually knows always, that the divulged lies aren't true. It is nevertheless insulting and a criminal offence.

Its a crime to insult someone in Germany?

Glad I don't live there. I'll keep my freedom of speech, thank you: there's a difference between libel/slander and an insult.

EDIT: I doubt that anything Mike has ever said would qualify as libel even by the standard you describe.

I have found an interessting English essay about Freedom Of Speech and Libel in Germany.
I have not read it yet entirely, but I think, it could explain better the appreciation of Freedom of Speech and the honor of other persons than I'm able to do it in a for me foreign language.

The Constitutional Treatment of Hate Speech (IV.C.1)
The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law

Please note especially:

II. Freedoms of Communication in German Constitutional Law (page 5)

Freedoms of communication are guaranteed by several articles in the Basic Law,10 with Art. 5 providing the most important of these norms. Art. 5 (1) BL covers the freedoms of speech, information, press, and broadcasts and films and also bans censorship. The article reads, “Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.” Art. 5 (2) BL lists three limitations to the general rights provided in Art. 5 (1): “These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.” Art. 5 (3) BL provides for specialized communicative rights that are not subject to an explicit limitation clause: “Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.” Consequently, scholarship and art may be restricted only by immanent constitutional limitations, such as competing basic rights of other persons or constitutionally protected values that deserve, in specific cases, priority over the freedoms afforded by Art. 5 (3) BL.
There are three dimensions to the rights granted by Art. 5 BL: an internal dimension (the formation of opinion and artistic or scholarly ideas), a communicative dimension (the expression of opinion and creation of works of art or science), and an external dimension (the effect of opinions, art, or science on the addressee or the audience). All of these dimensions come into play in the context of hate speech. Furthermore, when hate speech is motivated by religious considerations, Art. 4 (1) BL becomes applicable. It reads, “Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.” Like Art. 5 (3) BL, Art. 4 BL has no explicit constitutional limitations, so restrictions may only occur in the form of immanent constitutional limitations. Similar to all the rights listed in Art. 5 BL, Art. 4 BL includes both the internal dimension of the formation of one’s conscience or faith and the external dimension of reaching others through religious practice and religious speech.
When messages are expressed not by individuals but by groups of people, the right to assembly guaranteed by Art. 8 (1) BL or the right to free association guaranteed by Art. 9 (1) BL applies. Art. 8 (1) and (2) BL states: “All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission. In the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.” This article is intended to protect demonstrations, and because communication by demonstrators is frequently via banners and posters and by the actual physical presence of the group itself, this form of expression is protected as what American parlance would term “symbolic speech” or “speech plus.” Anticipating that the freedom of groups to assemble en masse might expose bystanders to dangers, Art. 8 (1) limits constitutional protection to those demonstrators who act peacefully and without weapons.
Coming together as associations is protected by Art. 9 (1) BL, which reads, “All Germans have the right to form corporations and other associations.” For purposes of the German Basic Law, an association differs from an assembly by virtue of its higher degree of organizational structure. To be recognized as an association, a group must be comprised of several individuals or juridical persons who unite for a common purpose and for an extended period of time and who submit to the formation of an organizational will. As with the freedom of assembly, the constitutional protection of associations is not explicitly dependent on their purpose, and members of an association may freely specify their purpose without fear, but important exceptions apply. Due to their higher degree of organization, associations pose a threat to the interests of third parties at least equal to the typical threat posed by assemblies. Therefore, Art. 9 (2) BL provides a limitation clause which reads, “Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.”
Political parties represent a special category of association beyond that encompassed by Art. 9, so they are covered by the auspices of Art. 21 (1) BL. That article reads, “Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles.…” Art. 21 (2) BL limits these rights by stating, “Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.” Art. 21 contains both special obligations and special rights that derive from the proximity of political parties to the authority of the State. Since the authority of the German state is based on both freedom and democracy, the Constitution obligates parties who wish to form a government to establish an appropriate internal organization. Due to the obvious danger that political parties critical to the government might be suppressed by the established majorities, the power to prohibit political parties is reserved by the Federal Constitutional Court. Absent being banned by the Court, political parties remain legal and enjoy the protection of the Constitution even if they advocate reprehensible political opinions. However, depending upon the message, the political speech of the party may come into conflict with hate speech limitations.
The main limitation of Art. 21 (2) BL is founded on the concept of the free and democratic state based on the rule of law (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung or fdGO). This concept is based on the possibility that freedom of any kind, even constitutional freedom of expression, could be abused for the purpose of abolishing freedom. The framers of the Basic Law wanted to prevent that from recurring in Germany by enabling government to protect the foundations of the political order. This makes the German polity a “militant democracy” and distinguishes it from the relativistic concept of democracy tolerating the expropriation and suppression of minorities by majorities espoused by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Justice Holmes said, “If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they be given their chance and have their way.” Following the events of the Second World War, eminent German legal thinkers crafting the Basic Law saw no such virtue in unrestrained “proletarian dictatorships.”

1. Insult of Individuals (Page 28):

Hate speech is commonly directed at groups of individuals on the basis of such unalterable shared characteristics as race, ethnicity, and gender. However, such speech can also be directed against lone individuals and still be punishable under criminal law if the verbal attack meets the definition of insult in § 185 of the Penal Code. If such an insult is made in public and involves assertions of fact that sully the honor of a person, then §§ 186 and 187 of the Penal Code apply. To what degree is honor guaranteed protection in such cases? What degree and what type of criticism must one tolerate without recourse to law? To better answer these questions, it is useful to divide the concept of honor into three levels.
(1) In its most basic sense, honor describes the status of a person who enjoys equal rights and who is entitled to respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments (menschlicher Achtungsanspruch). Thus, even lazy or dumb persons and criminals deserve this level of respect. The constitutional point of reference for this level of honor is the protection of the dignity of all human beings found in Art. 1 (1) BL. Honor in this sense is violated, and an insult occurs, when, for example, a human being is called subhuman or worthless or when a verbal attack is based on assertions of racial inferiority.
(2) A second level of honor is concerned with the preservation of minimum standards of mutual respect in public—the outward show of respect for people irrespective of one’s feelings about them (sozialer Respekt or Achtungsanspruch). Thislevel of honor is rooted in the constitutional protection of the personality as provided by Art. 2 (1) BL. Instances of disrespect and insult that violate the law include accusing another person of possessing severe moral or social character faults or having intellectual shortcomings—for instance, by calling the person a “swine” or a “jerk” or by making obscene gestures, such as “giving a person the finger.”
(3) A third level of honor covers defamation. Respect for this level of honor prohibits making factual assertions that tend to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him. Most of these violations of honor fall under §§ 186 and 187 of the Penal Code. Constitutionally, they are based on the right to the free development of the personality in Art. 2 (1) and the meaning of “honor” in Art. 5 (2) BL. The provision of Art. 12 BL, assuring the liberty to choose and work in a profession, provides additional strength to these interests insofar as damage to social reputation may result in professional and financial harms.
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, political criticism may be robust, aggressive, explicit, sharp, and even exaggerated, particularly when sharp repartees are involved, but less aggressiveness is generally allowed in private feuds. As stated by the Federal Constitutional Court:

• The spontaneity of free speech…is a precondition for the force and variety of public debate, which is in turn a basic condition for coexistence in freedom. If that force and variety are to be generally upheld, then in individual cases harshness and excess in the public clash of opinion or a use of freedom of opinion that can contribute nothing to appropriate opinion-formation must be accepted into the bargain (cf. BVerfGE 30, 336 [347]; 34, 269 [283] — Soraya). The fear of being exposed to severe judicial penalties because of an evaluative statement brings with it the danger of crippling or narrowing all debate and thereby bringing about effects that run counter to the function of freedom of expression of opinion in the order constituted by the Basic Law…

Legitimate political criticism, however, does not include formal vilification or contemptuous criticism marked by strictly derogatory statements unrelated or entirely marginal to any political message (Schmähkritik). The Strauß Caricature Case presents an illustration of such illegal criticism in violation of human dignity in the sense of the first level of honor. In that case, a satirical magazine had portrayed Franz-Josef Strauß, then the state prime minister of Bavaria, as a pig engaged in sexual activity. The pig bore the facial features of Strauß and copulated with another pig wearing a judge’s robe. As a satire, the caricature was covered by the freedom-of-art provision of Art. 5 (3) BL, which contains no explicit limitation clause. Despite acknowledging that satire and caricature characteristically resort to exaggeration, distortion, and alienation, the Federal Constitutional Court reasoned that, in this case, the rights to human dignity and personality found in Art. 1 (1) and Art. 2 (1) BL trumped the right to artistic freedom. As stated by the Court in that case:

• [What] was plainly intended was an attack on [the] personal dignity of the person caricatured. It is not his human features, his personal peculiarities, that are brought home to the observer through the alienation chosen. Instead, the intention is to show that he has marked “bestial” characteristics and behaves accordingly. Particularly the portrayal of sexual conduct, which in man still today forms part of the core of intimate life deserving of protection, is intended to devalue the person concerned as a person, to deprive him of his dignity as a human being…a legal system that takes the dignity of man as the highest value must disapprove of [such a portrayal].

That this case would have been decided differently in the United States can be gleaned from the outcome of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. In that similar case, a public figure, Jerry Falwell, a nationally known preacher, was depicted in a parody advertisement in Hustler Magazine as having had a drunken sexual rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. As in the Strauß Case, this parody was obviously not intended as an assertion of fact, but as a normative judgement. A lower court awarded Falwell $ 150,000 in damages on a tort action for “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” a cause of action that does not require a showing that the alleged facts are false (although Falwell certainly denied them). The Supreme Court struck down the damage award against the magazine due to Falwell’s status as a public figure.
The differences between the German and American approaches are seen when extreme or vicious value judgements attack honor at the first two levels described above. In such cases, insults are either voiced without related factual assertions or any factual assertions made are overshadowed by the sheer vitriol of the criticism. One reason for the different outcomes in the two judicial systems lies in the fact that Germany’s constitution does not give the right to free speech higher status than the rights to dignity, personality, and honor. A second reason is that Germany, due to its recent past, is especially sensitive to threats to human dignity and is determined to prevent attacks on the equal status of all human beings. A third reason for the different treatment of this category of insults is that Germany, unlike the United States, has a tradition of state-sponsored civil discourse.

The quotations, I have given, qualify undoubtedly as libel by the definition of §§ 185, 186, 187 of the German Federal Penal Code. An attack on our personal dignity was plainly intended. Therfore, it is undoubtedly a crime offence.

[Who is like God arbour]

God Arbour, while that is an interesting comparative essay, I'm not sure what it has to do with weather or not Wong is hiding at SDN. This seems to fit more into this thread -> Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits or in its own thread specifically about Mike Wong's behavior.

May be.
But it is a reason, why I'm justified not willing to debatte with Wong on his board.
As far as I know, there are no other boards with such rules, as SDN.
The reason, why Wong is "hidding" at SDN could be, that he is not able to debate in an adequate and reasonable manner.
His manner in a debate is even criminal in some states.
And I wanted to show, that such states value freedom of speech and are not dictatorships, in which there is no freedom of speech as the comment of Ted C [...]

Its a crime to insult someone in Germany?
Glad I don't live there. I'll keep my freedom of speech, thank you[...]

[...] could maybe have been understood.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Funny world that is. On one side, you have nations borderline on SF, with some sort of cold, unemotionnal anal retentive no-insult policy, while on the other end, you have countries were thousands of people die every day because they can't live properly, are menaced by guns and deseases, and put in jail for no other reason than a bad face and eventually non convenient political thinking, and where insults are the least of their problem.

[Who is like God arbour]

Funny world that is. On one side, you have nations borderline on SF, with some sort of cold, unemotionnal anal retentive no-insult policy, while on the other end, you have countries were thousands of people die every day because they can't live properly, are menaced by guns and deseases, and put in jail for no other reason than a bad face and eventually non convenient political thinking, and where insults are the least of their problem.

Yes, but the world would be a great deal better, if the governments of all nations would respect and protect the rights to dignity, personality, and honor of all mankind.

Then they wouldn't allow, that "thousands of people die every day because they can't live properly, are menaced by guns and deseases, and put in jail for no other reason than a bad face and eventually non convenient political thinking".

The first step has to be to respect such values. Who doesn't respect it, won't undertake something to prevent such circumstances.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Funny world that is. On one side, you have nations borderline on SF, with some sort of cold, unemotionnal anal retentive no-insult policy, while on the other end, you have countries were thousands of people die every day because they can't live properly, are menaced by guns and deseases, and put in jail for no other reason than a bad face and eventually non convenient political thinking, and where insults are the least of their problem.

Yes, but the world would be a great deal better, if the governments of all nations would respect and protect the rights to dignity, personality, and honor of all mankind.

Then they wouldn't allow, that "thousands of people die every day because they can't live properly, are menaced by guns and deseases, and put in jail for no other reason than a bad face and eventually non convenient political thinking".

The first step has to be to respect such values. Who doesn't respect it, won't undertake something to prevent such circumstances.

You don't need a zero insult society to feel concerned about the deplorable status of those poor countries.

Anal retentive society, with plenty of good fancy manners, political correctness and all that:

"Oh, you display the behaviour of a nazi. No, I'm not saying you are a nazi, because I'm not allowed to."

Down to the point society where people still live confortably:

"You are a nazi (because you behave like them and by definition, this makes you a nazi)."

[Who is like God arbour]

Maybe you should read the qoutations from the essay again.

Your exqample shows, that you either have not read it or have not understood it.

Everybody has to tolerate criticism to some degree.

If you think, that the behaviour of someone shows, that he is a national socialist, than it is allowed to say it as a criticism of his behaviour.

But it is not allowed to call someone a national socialist only to humiliate or defame him, especially if there are no indications, that he is indeed a national socialist.

I don't like national socialists. But they have their rights to have a political opinion. I'm allowed to criticise their political position and their behaviour. But I'm not allowed to defame them as human beings only because their political opinion.

[Who is like God arbour]

And I think, that it is good, that insults are verboten.
For many people, honor and dignity is just as important as if not more important than health, life or possession.

The purpose of an insult is to annoy someone. But what happens, if this someone is really angry.

What would you do, if someone would insults you, maybe in front of your spouse and child?

You would get angry and...?

Maybe you are such a person, who is totally cool and would never get provoked by even the most awful insults and who would never mind, that their own spouse and child could think, that they are cowards because they put up with such insults.

But there are people, who are not able to control themselfs and would get violent. We would have to penalise them for what they have done to someone, who has deliberately provoked such behaviour in the first place.

Or maybe you think, it is OK to get violent, if someone insults you?

But what is, if these someone is much stronger than you and you know, you have no chances? You would have to tolerate, that this someone insults you and that your own spouse and child may think, that you are a coward because you put up with such insults.

Or you would attack this someone demonstrative and let yourself beat up by this someone.

Anyway, that would lead to a society in which the stronger can insult the weaker without consequences.

But maybe you think, if you are not able to bash your offencer, you can get you a weapon and kill him. After all, he has insulted you for years and you have had to tolerate it because you was not able to stop these insults without a weapon.

I think, you can see, what I want to say.

It is no problem, if you want to say something. But if you only intent to insult someone, that's not OK. It can lead only to an escalation. Maybe not at once, but sometimes definitely.

[Jedi Master Spock]

What defamation statutes address is not the question of insulting someone; it applies to the question of causing harm to someone's reputation. For example, if you claim that Wendy's uses rat meat in their chili when they do not - publicly enough - Wendy's may suffer unjustly as a result. If you claim that a man is a pedophile when he is not, it may destroy both his social life and his career.

You might be advised to read here and read the discussion between Wong and G2k closely - every so often they bring up the some of the basic motivations for defamation/slander/libel laws, which is to say the very real harm that can be committed by published words.

The primary form of defense in a case like this is a claim to justification. Were, for example, Wong to be fired on the basis the descriptions of his behavior that can be found on ST-v-SW.net (as he suggested could happen as a result of his employers reading ST-v-SW.net and believing the contents thereof) and subsequently start legal action against G2k, the defense from justification would be for G2k to demonstrate that the allegedly harmful statements on his website constitute an accurate depiction as a whole.

Those of you suggesting that the German justice system is particularly harsh compared to the English common law used by the Commonwealth countries (and US) may do well to examine the recent case of Keith-Smith v Williams in Britain, which involves a flamewar that was no more harsh and no more public than many of the spats between VS debaters.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Maybe you should read the qoutations from the essay again.

Your exqample shows, that you either have not read it or have not understood it.

I have not read it. Too much to read and not necessary to realize the problem at hand. I understand the subtle dance of fools this is all about. See:

Everybody has to tolerate criticism to some degree.

Constructive criticism would be better.

If you think, that the behaviour of someone shows, that he is a national socialist, than it is allowed to say it as a criticism of his behaviour.

To say what? That he's a nazi or showing the behaviour of a nazi?

It's just simply anal retentive to claim that there's a difference between stating that a person behaves like a nazi and is a nazi.
By definition, behaving like a [x] make you a [x], until you behave differently, especially when a status is actually defined by a set of behaviours and acts which can be expressed by anyone.

Let's see. A guy's behaving like a troll. Are you saying that I have no right to directly say that he's a troll, but that I should rather circle around that idea, and, instead, claim that he behaves like a troll?

But it is not allowed to call someone a national socialist only to humiliate or defame him, especially if there are no indications, that he is indeed a national socialist.

So the evidence is all subjective before it goes to the courts, and then the case is settled according to the judges' subjective evidence.

I don't like national socialists. But they have their rights to have a political opinion. I'm allowed to criticise their political position and their behaviour. But I'm not allowed to defame them as human beings only because their political opinion.

On that I agree. However, if a political opinion and way of living makes a person speak, act and behave like a fascist, because that's the fundamentals of the political party he's clutched to, I believe it's my plain right to point a finger at this person and call him a fascist.

Sometimes, a cat has to be called a cat.

[Who is like God arbour]

What defamation statutes address is not the question of insulting someone; it applies to the question of causing harm to someone's reputation
[...]
The primary form of defense in a case like this is a claim to justification
[...]
Those of you suggesting that the German justice system is particularly harsh compared to the English common law used by the Commonwealth countries (and US) may do well to examine the recent case of Keith-Smith v Williams in Britain, which involves a flamewar that was no more harsh and no more public than many of the spats between VS debaters.

I have understood, that the English common law used by the Commonwealth countries (and US) protects only the reputation and not the feelings of Legal entities and persons.

The from you already provided article Canadian Defamation Law was in this regard very clear: "[...] defamation tort law protects your reputation, not your feelings."

That's the difference in Germany, where to a certain degree the feelings are protected too because we think, that the feelings of a human being, its honor and dignity, are sometimes just as important as other erga omneses and sometimes even more important than the Freedom of Speech. We think, that it is bad to libel a person, if the statement shall serve not other purpose.

The problem, if the primary form of defense is a claim to justification, is, as we see it, that this needs time and money. In the recent case of Keith-Smith v Williams in Britain, Mr. Keith-Smith has had £7,200 costs. What would happen, if he could have not afforded this court case? Or what would happen, if Tracy Williams could not have afforded a lawyer to defend himself?

And if the feelings are hurt, a claim to justification is useless. Especially because until a short time ago the German civil law doesn't know immaterial damage and even today, it is an exception. Usually, one can only demand compensation for material damage, like loss of earnings or profits or costs, which are arisen. (In Germany, it is impossible, that someone could get millions only because he has burnt his lip at a too hot coffee and there was no warning on the cup.) Honor and dignity are not protected by civil law but by criminal law.

And there is still the danger, that an insult could escalate in violence, what is, in my opinion, a good reason to forbid insulting. The thereby caused limitation of the freedom of speech is minimal and acceptable, because no one could have a justified urge to insult other people in a civilised society. He can say, what he wants, as long as his primary intent is not to insult someone.

I have not read it.

Maybe you should read it. You will notice, that your comments are false and absurd and have nothing to do with German law.

And maybe you can answer my question. What would you do, if someone would insults you, maybe in front of your spouse and child?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Maybe you should read it. You will notice, that your comments are false and absurd and have nothing to do with German law.

I'd rather say that the german law is pretty much irrelevant if the forum you're speaking in is hosted in a country that has nothing to do with Germany.

After reading the essay, I can see that it does not adress the question I raised in my previous post, or at least leavse me as clueless as I was before reading it.

As absurd as it seems, I am apparently free of claiming that someone behaves like a fascist, with no fear of punishment, no matter how insulting this can be as a matter of fact, but I am forbidden to directly call someone a fascist, because he behaves like a fascist, which makes no difference at all.
A fascist is someone who practices in the ways of the fascism, ergo acts, behaves according to those rules, even if it's only temporary. By definition, this very makes this person a fascist, precisely because of his behaviour.

Again, if you behave like a twit, then for that moment, as far as I'm concerned, you are a twit.

You seemed to suggest that if we can prove that one's person is a twit, I can call him as such. Your words:

If you think, that the behaviour of someone shows, that he is a national socialist, than it is allowed to say it as a criticism of his behaviour.

But it is not allowed to call someone a national socialist only to humiliate or defame him, especially if there are no indications, that he is indeed a national socialist.

Huh, because if I have two tons of proofs, I'm not insulting someone anymore, even if I use the exact same words, than if I had no proof at all. Instead, I'm speaking the truth, because I have evidence that one is a cretin/twit/moron/troll/whatever?
Please. That, is absurd.
You can insult someone as long as you can backup your claims?
I'm beyond libeling someone just for the sake of libel, I'm actually libeling someone because I believe I have valid reasons to do so, which according to your almost double standardized definition, is perfectly fine.

I can say that someone is lying, behaving like a liar and that all his arguments are lies, but I cannot synthetize all this and simply say that the person is a liar because of those very things I've cited just before?
That would seem utterly foolish and naïve.

It's that funny borderline where even if you had two pages of someone's lies to back you up, a set of information that can be verified by anyone, you could not call that someone a liar.

Which brings me to the question I raised in my former post, which I'd like to hear you reply to, please.

And maybe you can answer my question. What would you do, if someone would insults you, maybe in front of your spouse and child?

The insult has been formulated. It's slander. I'll try to ignore this person.