Hacker News Reader

Comment by impossiblefork | Hacker News Reader

>One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings.

That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression.

I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation.

The primacy of freedom of speech must central, and I think we should think as if though everyone were psychologically very strongly compelled to speak about what he does and that we should have the presumption that he speaks honestly.

Truth is also special, and rightly holds a special place in people's psychology and in religion.

View on HN

I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying.

For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have to prove you are not a rapist, under a balance of probabilities test. This is much harder than defending yourself from a criminal indictment, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor / victim. So what do you do? If you do go to court and fail to prove your innocence then there’s now an official document that essentially states you are a rapist.

No. You only need to prove that the other party recklessly claimed it without evidence.

The defence is the truth of the statement, or at least in its non-recklessness and that is provided by the party that is sued.

The American approach on this clearly works. There's a recent US case of defamation some dead children with clearly excessive fines, but that's also in the other direction.

Again, I think you’re oversimplifying. There’s nothing reckless about accusing someone of rape, even if the only proof you have is your own testimony under oath.

Religion? Religion is the one area of the life where truth s independent of proof. Some would say that truth without proof is my truth at all.

Religion says that A's unverifiable statements are sacred and not allowed to be criticized, but B's are heretical and punished.

This is neither distinct to religious beliefs nor universal among practitioners.

Perhaps, but at least in my religion lying is a way to not get to be part of the world in a far future state when it is put right.

Some religions say that unverifiable statements are sacred, but I don't have any kind scriptural infallibility in the variant of mine that I hold to. There's also an element in it equating God with truth, which would imply that going away from truth, or not seeking it, is going away from, or not seeking God.

I don't if this is unique to my religion, but if it is, then it fits me very well.

That is a strawman. What you are describing is an authoritarian theocracy.

While such things exist, they are not synonymous with religion.

It also depends on what you mean by verifiable. If someone has a religious belief they are likely to think they have reason for what they believe. This is true of any contested belief in any field.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com