[elicash]

I'll answer your question but I hope you answer mine: Do you think I should be able to successfully sue you for millions of dollars if you had SERIOUSLY just called me a racist? If not, we're closer in viewpoint than you want to admit.

Now to your question:

> What benefits do you think free-for-all slander and libel would give society exactly?

I DON'T favor "free-for-all" slander or libel. But to the extent that I draw the line differently from you, the benefit to society would be that society gets to debate what exactly it means to be racist and hopefully that open debate leads to something useful. I like the idea that you combat speech with more speech because I think it leads to better outcomes for all of us. I don't think it's helpful to have people live in fear of saying anything controversial.

[mullingitover]

> Do you think I should be able to successfully sue you for millions of dollars if you had SERIOUSLY just called me a racist?

If I damage you with lies in word or in print, you are entitled to be made whole. If I lied about you and it cost you millions of dollars as a result, yes, you should be allowed to sue me to get those millions back.

What problem do you have with this system?

Edit: and if the damages were done with malice, society is absolutely entitled to add punishment on top of correcting the harm that brought the case to court.

[elicash]

> What problem do you have with this system?

I think people define "racist" differently. Some see it in terms of systems. Some people think calling out racism is itself racist. Some view certain types of jokes as being a sign of being racist. There are as many definitions of the term as there are people.

I have repeatedly mentioned there are limits, but my problem with the system you laid out (which I'd argue is far more extreme than what was decided in this case) is that I'm a free speech guy who thinks we're better off when we can discuss issues openly.

[mullingitover]

> I'm a free speech guy who thinks we're better off when we can discuss issues openly.

You can already do this. You just can't harm people with your speech and expect no consequences.

[mullingitover]

Also, nobody gets sued for libel over honest debate. They do, however, face social repercussions for taking positions out of line with society's values. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

[elicash]

You just argued below that if I had bad economic impact based on the FACT that you called me a racist that I should be able to sue you over this very honest debate and win. You've taken a very extreme position here. At least one person, you, are arguing this. So don't say "nobody."

[mullingitover]

That's not an extreme position, it's the law of the land and has been for a long time. It's basic civil law that if you harm someone they can take you to court to be made whole. Civilization is sort of built on this concept.

The thing here is that you're not being harmed by rhetoric. If you were, you'd have a case.

[mullingitover]

> So if Eli Cash was my actual name (rather than a Royal Tenenbaums character), and if I didn't get a job because the employer googled my name and your claim came up..? You really think I'd have a real case?

Would a reasonable person read my post in context and somehow walk away believing you were a racist? You know they wouldn't.

[elicash]

> If you were, you'd have a case.

So if Eli Cash was my actual name (rather than a Royal Tenenbaums character), and if I didn't get a job because the employer googled my name and your claim came up..? You really think I'd have a real case?

I guess if we still disagree nothing can be done about that. We've both made our points.