As a Muslim, I'm Fed Up With the Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Fundamentalists

if we have freedom of speech then why do we pay telephone bills?do u find my question interesting.....? try to ans it guys

9 Answers**•**Law & Ethics

Best Answer*(Chosen by Voter)

I not only do not find this question interesting, I find this question stupid and asinine because freedom of speech has nothing to do with devices that allow you to transmit speech. And anyone with more than a double handful of IQ points would understand that.

Yahoo answers.

---------


I do not claim to espouse any of the opinions in the article below, and have only posted it as a reference to opinions that are or have been held by legal societies. We are told in Sahih Muslim that The final Messenger of God pbuh has stipulated that the question of backbiting also applies to true statements if they degrade a person's reputation, of course, this too is to be evaluated based on the interests of safeguarding and upholding justice as can be observed from the various official complaints and hearings about people in public office during the time of Allah's Messenger and the rightly guided Caliphs.

Libel and Slander

*Also found in:*Dictionary/thesaurus,*Medical,*Encyclopedia,*Wikipedia.

Libel and Slander

Two*torts*that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation.

Libel is any*Defamation*that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue.

Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity.

The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
(i have been told that a company is considered a "person" in all respects in most capitalist countries).

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning.

It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so.

Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board. The defamation need not be printed or distributed. However, if the defendant does not intend it to be conveyed to anyone other than the plaintiff, and conveys it in a manner that ordinarily would prevent others from seeing or hearing it, the requirement of publication has not been satisfied even if a third party inadvertently overhears or witnesses the communication.
Liability for republication of a defamatory statement is the same as for original publication, provided that the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the statement.

Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications.
On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory.

Common carriers such as telephone companies are not liable for defamatory material that they convey, even if they know that it is defamatory, unless they know, or have reason to know, that the sender does not have a privilege to communicate the material. Suppliers of communications equipment are never liable for defamatory material that is transmitted through the equipment they provide.

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege.
The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established. If the plaintiff consented to publication of the defamatory material, recovery is barred. Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. Privilege confers*Immunity*on a small number of defendants who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public's business—for example, attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses whose statements are protected on public policy grounds.

....... Those who favor a less restrictive definition of public figure argue that*Freedom of the Press*requires such a definition.
It is in the public interest to encourage the reporting of news without fear that the subject of a story will sue the news organization for libel.
Without adequate safeguards news editors may resort to self-censorship to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit. In a democratic society, self-censorship would prove to be a damaging restriction on the public's right to information.