The Mayor and the Journalist ........

Originally posted by dottewell
The test they actually applied used "would", not "could". Does this make you feel better about it?

Do you have a problem with using what a "reasonable person" would think, on the balance of probabilities? Or is it just the specific provision of the code?

a reasonable onlooker in possession of relevant facts WOULD find that he had caused damage to the reputation of the office


This is a totally subjective "test" cloaked in the language of the law. The undefined term "caused damage to the reputation of the office" could mean anything. Therefore, a "reasonable person" standard is a chimera. In law. a "reasonable person" standard is used to evaluate an actor's course of conduct as measured against a specific standard. For instance, in criminal law we might ask if a "reasonable person" would have thought himself or another in immiment danger of death or serious physical injury. If so, he can act in self-defense and use deadly physical force. But we know what death and serious physical injury are; those have an objective reality. But there is no standard for what "caused damage to the reputation of the office". Thus, it is an empty vessel to pour whatever you want into.

This is a kangeroo court.

Originally posted by dottewell
How offensive it was (although I guess that will require an explanation of how it was offensive).

Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."

The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

The comment says he's Jewish because he is paid to, just like a concentration camp guard was paid to. It is a comment presumably making reference to the stereotypical notion that Jews are greedy, money grubbers (example - Shylock in Merchant of Venice). Do you see where that might be considered offensive to the listener?

Originally posted by no1marauder
a reasonable onlooker in possession of relevant facts WOULD find that he had caused damage to the reputation of the office


This is a totally subjective "test" cloaked in the language of the law. The undefined term "caused damage to the reputation of the office" could mean anything. Therefore, a "reasonable person" standard is a chimera. In la ...[text shortened]... an empty vessel to pour whatever you want into.

This is a kangeroo court.

Out of interest, do you take the same view of the British libel laws, if you are familiar with them?

Originally posted by dottewell
How offensive it was (although I guess that will require an explanation of how it was offensive).

Likening people to Nazis is, in general, really offensive. Likening Jews to Nazis is, in general, exceptionally offensive.

Originally posted by dottewell
Out of interest, do you take the same view of the British libel laws, if you are familiar with them?

Not very. I understand that they're far more easier for the plaintiff than libel laws in the US. I think you can guess from our previous discussion how I would feel about "easy" (for the plaintiff) libel laws.

Originally posted by bbarr
Likening people to Nazis is, in general, really offensive. Likening Jews to Nazis is, in general, exceptionally offensive.

I didn't know this; thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I didn't know this; thanks for sharing.

I'm here to serve.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."

The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

The comment says he's Jewish because he is paid to, just like a concen ...[text shortened]... rchant of Venice). Do you see where that might be considered offensive to the listener?

I take him to be saying: "It is irrelevant that you are Jewish. You are being paid to hassle me (a left-wing politician) by a right-wing newspaper with a political agenda. You are doing do knowing it may be wrong, and doing it solely for the money. In that way, you are like a Concentration Camp guard."

The force of the analogy assumes the tacit belief that the Holocaust was very, very wrong indeed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not very. I understand that they're far more easier for the plaintiff than libel laws in the US. I think you can guess from our previous discussion how I would feel about "easy" (for the plaintiff) libel laws.

They use a similar "reasonable person" test, although it is phrased "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally".

The putative reasonable person must consider the plaintiff would have been exposed to ridicule/hatred, or be shunned, or be injured in his office or profession.

The vagueness does make it very hard to predict the outcome of libel cases.

Originally posted by dottewell
I take him to be saying: "It is irrelevant that you are Jewish. You are being paid to hassle me (a left-wing politician) by a right-wing newspaper with a political agenda. You are doing do knowing it may be wrong, and doing it solely for the money. In that way, you are like a Concentration Camp guard."

The force of the analogy assumes the tacit belief that the Holocaust was very, very wrong indeed.

I think that's an over analysis of an off-hand remark.

Originally posted by dottewell
They use a similar "reasonable person" test, although it is phrased "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally".

The putative reasonable person must consider the plaintiff would have been exposed to ridicule/hatred, or be shunned, or be injured in his office or profession.

The vagueness does make it very hard to predict the outcome of libel cases.

My comment in the other thread about Europe not quite getting the "Fundamental Rights" thing stands.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think that's an over analysis of an off-hand remark.

What do you know about English affairs?

Originally posted by dottewell
I take him to be saying: "It is irrelevant that you are Jewish. You are being paid to hassle me (a left-wing politician) by a right-wing newspaper with a political agenda. You are doing do knowing it may be wrong, and doing it solely for the money. In that way, you are like a Concentration Camp guard."

The force of the analogy assumes the tacit belief that the Holocaust was very, very wrong indeed.

And this is supposed to mitigate the offensiveness? From the reporter's perspective, how many things in your translation would you find offensive? I count at least four independent aspects that I would find offensive.

The claim that the reporter's job is merely to hassle (rather than, say, report).

The claim that the reporter is someone who would do something he knows to be wrong.

The claim that the reporter is prepared to act wrongly solely for money.

The claim that this makes him somehow similar to a Nazi.

And these sources of offense are independent of the fact that the reporter was Jewish. When that is factored in, the claim seems pretty much constructed to offend.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
What do you know about English affairs?

Get lost. I was asked a question, I responded. I know England is a very silly country with a monarchy and lawyers wearing powdered wigs. That's enough for me.

Originally posted by bbarr
And this is supposed to mitigate the offensiveness? From the reporter's perspective, how many things in your translation would you find offensive? I count at least four independent aspects that I would find offensive.

The claim that the reporter's job is merely to hassle (rather than, say, report).

The claim that the reporter is someone who would do ...[text shortened]... rter was Jewish. When that is factored in, the claim seems pretty much constructed to offend.

Well I do work as a journalist, and I wouldn't be particularly offended by any of that. People say such things all the time. Other professions face the same sort of thing (corrupt politicians, scheming lawyers, etc.)

How much more offended would I be if I were Jewish? I don't know.

How much more offended should I be?