I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your defamation make it acceptable?
Whereas accusing a group means no individual has a clear case that they have been harmed. And, there is generally no individual or organization from said group that is able to speak for it. Although there are indeed some organizations that exist for this purpose, like the ADL.
It is not so much that being non-specific makes defamation acceptable, but rather, being non specific makes it so much more difficult to go after the person.
Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?
These are trials we are talking about. We don’t have to believe everything that is said. We can let a jury look at the situation and make a decision. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider any Beatles lyrics to be instructions to murder. A reasonable person could interpret some hate speech as instructions for murder.
>Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.
That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.
No, but they can find someone guilty without reference to what the prosecution says.
Neither the jury, nor the prosecution, nor me, nor even (likely) you believes that Manson was convicted solely on the basis of hypothetical speech.
Tex Watson testified that Manson explicitly ordered the Tate killings.
Manson was physically present at the scene of the LaBianca killings, and actually entered the house (again, according to Watson).
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
>> Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro's speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were "speaking" on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
It's not defamation to say "All surgeons are butchers" but is defamation to say "Doctor (insert doctor's name) is a butcher." (that is, assuming that the doctor isn't actually a butcher... truth is a defense against defamation).