![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 22:49:41
> Does this thread belong on admin?
Well, it has to do with what to consider civil, so I think it's OK here for now at least. Did you want to redirect it somewhere? :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 8:59:54
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
Friends,
Another form of defamation is cruelty in the statement toward another. Now if someone said, "Your diction is atrocious", that appears to not be a defamatory statement. But if that person had a speech impediment from a neurological disorder, then the statement would be cruel and defaming.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 9:44:48
In reply to A short introduction on defamation--CRL, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 8:59:54
Friends,
Another form of defamation is when a statement is designed to stigmatize another person. Some examples are:
Making a person have a particular identification or segregating them.
Disallowing a person equal accesss..
Lou
Posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 11:18:52
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
Well, I wondered because it is very general. The posts aren't talking about Psycho Babble civility issues, but the nature of defamation in the opinion of one poster (and I'm not sure about the accuracy of the examples).
I suppose if people want to talk about "what is defamation" I'd see it belonging on social. If someone wants to say "this poster defamed me" I'd see it belonging here.
However, in the larger scale of the history of humanity, and the infinite future of the world, I suppose it really doesn't matter where it goes.
Shar
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:32
In reply to I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by Sabina on August 19, 2003, at 21:55:56
Another type of defamation is the accusation of the person having a shamefull condition or loathem disease.
So you are saying having AIDS is shamefull (sic) ?
Seems like a judgement to me.
Posted by PAXVOX on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » paxvox, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 21:18:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
In reply to Re: I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:32
stjames,
In writing about what defamation is, historically, there were laws that punished people for making statements that caused others to be shunned or avoided. These laws were called "loathsome disease" statutes and originated way before AIDS and diagnostic psychiatry were ever known of.
So to use a statement to cause another to be shunned, the defamer would say that the other person has a "loathsome disease" so that others would aviod that person. They would say that the person had a sexually transmitted disease or leprosy or smallpox or the plague. This was carried to its extream in the middle ages where antisemitic people defamed the jews by saying that they spread the plague, or worse, that the plague was brought to Europe by the jews.
Also, to cause shunning of another back then, the defamer would say that the other person is "crazy". The inplication there is to make others aviod the person because "crazyness' was associated with violence and psychopathic murder and such.
So that is where the "loathsome disease" wording came from and it is still used in the language of law today. It is an anachronism.
Today, there are new ways for defamers to use the old method of saying something about another person in order to have others shunn or avoid them. They could say that the other person has AIDS, because they want that person shunned and some people will shunn a person with AIDS out of ignorance of the contagious aspect of the disease. If someone spread that a women has AIDS, she would be shunned by many men who wanted a sexual partner. The defamation occurs when the person defamed is defamed falsely, except in some jurisdictions that do not consider the truth as a defense if the defamation was made with malice to harm.
The "shamfull" aspect of this terminology referrs usually to sexually transmitted diseases back in the past when they were associated with adultery was considerd shamefull. Defaming a women by saying that she has syphilis, let's say in 1920, would cause that women great harm if it was not true.
Today, calling someone "crazy" could be defaming also for it is damageing to the reputation of people to be labled such for some people will shunn or aviod people that are called "crazy" by others, for many have fear of others that are labled "crazy". But today, that word has been replaced by "schizzo" and "manic-depressive and such. So it is defamation if someone calls you a manic-depressive ,without privlege, for they are really using the old mentality of trying to get others to shunn or aviod you. I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull, for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
The hypothetical example that I used about the town meeting about the proposed ban of motorcycles in the town is illistrative of such. And if that was to actually happen to me, I would consider the man's ststement as defamatory.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
Are you trying to say that you feel you have been defamed on this site??
If so could you provide quotes to back this up.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:11:32
In reply to Are you saying?, posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "Are you saying that you feel you have been defamed on this site??"
Well, it depends. It depends on people's conception of what constitutes defamation. What would be the criteria that you would use to constitute defamation here? If you could list the criteria that you consider to be defaming, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 15:47:04
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull, for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
So you are implying that if you get it via other
methods, like gay sex, it is shamefull.
Posted by lou pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:54:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 15:47:04
stjames,
You wrote,[...are you implying that if AIDS is aquiered...,like gay sex, it is shamefull?...].
No, I am not.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by lou pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:54:32
I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull,
(lou, since you added the next part, you are qualifing that is not shameful if you get AIDS
via some methods, and it is implied it is shameful if you get it by others>for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
Please don't say things that would cause me to feel put down, as I am gay.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 16:51:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
stjames,
Let us look at this link in regards to your post.
Lou
http://www.look4law.com/topics/Defamation.asp
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 17:05:23
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 16:51:14
> stjames,
> Let us look at this link in regards to your post.
> Lou
> http://www.look4law.com/topics/Defamation.aspNot intrested.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:13:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
sj,
please do not accuse me of writing something that I did not write, for I did not write anything that implies that if you get AIDS by another method other than a blood transfusion that the condition would be shamefull. It is the community that could consider someone that has HIV to be shamefull, not me, and that is what I wrote. I wrote ," I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull." Please do not misquote me or write that I am implying something that I am not.
Society is quick to jump to the conclusion that if someone has a sexually transmitted disease, that they commited adultery. I wrote that sociey is guilty of rushing to that conclusion for one could have gotten the disease from the other spouse that was unfaithfull or could have gotten the disease though non-sexuall means.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:47:59
In reply to Are you saying?, posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
NikkiT2,
Defamation occurs when somone writes something that is injueous to the other person's reputation. But there are other forms of defamation that i am also writing about here.
Cruel statements about another person are defaming. Hatefull statements are also defaming. Accusations if infidelity are defaming. attributing a loathsome disease to someone is defaming. Calling someone a manic-depressive is defaming. All of these and moe that i hav not finished writing about yet are contingent upon them being false or without privlege. Some jurisdictions do not accept truth as a defense if the statement was made with malice. Mlost of these are not in the US.
You had asked me for examples that have been written concerning me. One of the most horrible defaming statements ever made to me in my life was by you when you wrote, Lou, you are a nasty piece of work. I asked you to clarify and you did not. the phrase is distinctly British comming from the antisemitic England after 1290 when the jews were expelled by the king from England. The jews were later falsely portryed by Shakespeare in "The merchant of Venice, the person named Shylock. Shakespears himself used the phrase in Hamlet, I belive. The piece of work is referring in that time to something made. A human that was called a nasty piece of work was being called a human that god made that was nasty. You called me that on this publuic forum after you defamed me in a previous post and you were still allowed to continue posting. You also wrote that my spelling was awfull. That is one of the most cruel statements made to me in my life for I have explained many times hear that I have a rare nerological condition that impairs me to write or spell correctly. It is not my fault and I can do nothing about it ever, for thecondition is permanant. You have mad eother defaming statement about me and they are in the archives. As far as others defaming me, that is another story.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 19:29:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:13:47
Lou, I am really trying to understand this. Why did you write this:
for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2003, at 19:33:51
In reply to OK, I'll be good (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by PAXVOX on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:34
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:35:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 19:29:07
stjames,
The idea of defamation in the history of the worls involved adultery. The masterpiece of Nathanal Hawthorn, 'The Scarlet Letter", shows some of this. Adultery then was considered a horrible crime. So to accused falsly of such damaged the reputation of the one accused falsely.
The defamation laws were formed to punish that type of defamation. So horrible was adultery, that it was considered the great shame.
The ancient Isrealites stoned to death adulterers, so a false accusation of such carried a huge punishment later in history. Adulterers are still beheaded in some Islamic countries.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:42:20
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:35:06
stjames,
The issue in our discussion is adulterty. The appearance of a sexually transmitted disease in the past meant to society, but not me, that one was an adulterer. I pointed this out, that esxually transmitted dieass could be gotten wirthout commiting adultery and I disagree with the hisorical definition of defamation in regards to this, same with AIDS.
Now same-sex marriages are now accepted in the US via a recent supreme court rulling. So a same sex partner couls also be defamed as an adulterer here.
I have absolutly no qualms or predudices at all with same-sex marriages. They also belive in fidelity in their matrriage and take the same vows as heterosexual marriages. plese do not accuse me in any way of defaming same sex partners. My beliefe has been expressed about this in The Road.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 20:18:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:42:20
stjames,
one of the most tragic case is of that great nurse,(I can't remember her name that books are written about) died of syphilis. She obtained the patogen via blood from a paitiant in the hospital that she made famous over 100 years ago.
One of the points that I am making here in this discussion about fefamation, is some of these things. Society considers adultery a great shame, but I say that society could also be the shame when they stigmatize people for such. "The Scarlet Letter" was put on Hester by others, not me.
Lou
Posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:42:13
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 19:35:06
> stjames,
> The idea of defamation in the history of the worls involved adultery. The masterpiece of Nathanal Hawthorn, 'The Scarlet Letter", shows some of this. Adultery then was considered a horrible crime. So to accused falsly of such damaged the reputation of the one accused falsely.
> The defamation laws were formed to punish that type of defamation. So horrible was adultery, that it was considered the great shame.
> The ancient Isrealites stoned to death adulterers, so a false accusation of such carried a huge punishment later in history. Adulterers are still beheaded in some Islamic countries.
> LouJust thought I'd point out, as an aside, it was usually women that were punished more severely (or punished at all) for adultery, based (often) on the word of the husband. The same goes for the millions of women who died (before cures were available) from venereal diseases because "men were just being men" and that was just how it was.
Certainly, men died, too, but the wives were no longer acceptable as part of polite society, often having done nothing more than their 'duties' to their husbands.
While I could write so very, very much more on this topic (women being stoned to death because they were in public without an appropriate male escort), I will restrain myself.
Thus, as far as defamation is concerned, it was more likely to fall on the female (who mattered less anyway) than the male.
One minor point, was Hester Prynne defamed, or was she punished for breaking a law? Her pregnancy was evidence she could not conceal as far as her "crime" was concerned, so she really did have sex (with Dimmesdale who was too chicken to take his medicine), and received a punishment appropriate for that day and time (tho' Dimmesdale could have lessened her suffering significantly had he been an honest man). So, is being found guilty of any crime the same as defamation?
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 7:40:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post-ADUL, posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:42:13
Shar,
It is my position here that I do not condone the punishment of adultery. Nor do I agree with the ancient codes for such.
In Hawthorn's classic, Dimsdale was the personification of those times amd ther was and still is an inequity in the treatment of women vs the treatment of men throught the world in relation to this topic. My position is, let he that has not sinned cast the first stone.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 8:03:52
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:47:59
When i called you a nasty peice of work, you had just attcked me in a very nasty way, even though you denied that changing my name in such an obvious way was an attack. It had NOTHING what so ever to with Jews or anything like that.. the fact that you think its was an attack on jews in pretty offensive in my eyes. You know full well that I have no prejudices against ANY religion.
And when I mentioned your spelling, it was after you had correted MY spelling - which had actually been a typo which I do alot of becaus eof nerve problems in my arm that causes hand to eye co-ordination problems.But when you take thinsg totally and utterly out of context they can sound mean. Maybe I shoudl find some of your statements and post just a few of the words - I;m sure then other people would find them offensive. Like this thread for example - some of your words have been taken out of context and used against you. Not nice is it??
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 8:26:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 21, 2003, at 8:03:52
NikkiT2,
First, thank you for pointing out that others in this thread have taken what I have written out of context in an attempt to defame me.
But your statement,"Lou, you are a nasty piece of work", was not anything out of context for you wrote that about me. Your attempt to ligitimise your defamation toward me by saying that you are allowed to do so here is blatently against the rules here for the rule has been always to not hurt others even if you think your's were hurt.
I consider your claim of innocemce because of what you wrote to constitute what is called a pretext and I consider it a transparrent attempt to gain sympathy when no sympathy is deserverd. If we were allowed to defame others here on your basis, then anyone could manufacture their own reason to commit defamation and the moderator's code has a provision to not allow that. But he did allow it, and that has caused you, perhaps to feel that you had a ligitimasy to commit defamation. I am not a nasty peice of work. I am made by my God in His image and if you say that I am a nasty piece of work, then you are also saying that my God is the same.
You may have a position of favor here to be allowed to commit defamation toward me here and not be stopped from posting, even after you were told to be civil preceding this post in question in another post that you defamed me in. But it is this allowing of such here that I am trying to stop. For when the moderator does not enforce his own rules equally, then we have a community run by the whims and predudices of such and that is what I am trying to change because I feel that it is an unsound mental health practice to allow descrimination and/or favoritism, for descrimination is uncivil.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.