|
I suggest that defamatory lies are not a different matter. If person A tells a lie about person B to person C, there are two possible victims. First look at person B. What property of person B has been taken away without permission? None, as person B never owned the opinions of person C. Next look at person C. What property of person C has been taken away without permission? Unless person C entered into a contract with, and paid consideration to, person A to receive truthful information, I can't think of any property that person C has been denied. Person C does not own the right to forever-virtuous sounds, just as person C does not own the right to always have a view of the ocean, or to be always surrounded by the smell of roses. If you agree that there is no crime in this 3 person scenario, then I can't see how you can see a crime just because the lier lied to more people (say, through the mass media), or lied about more people (say, an entire race of people). Some might reject this rights-based approach, and favour a utilitarian approach. A utilitarian might think that society's welfare is maximised if the number of untruths people believed were minimised, and the number of truths people believed were maximised. Even with this approach, there is little need for defamation laws. The damage of a lie is in direct proportion to how far the lie is from the truth, and to how believable the lie is. But the further away from the truth a lie is, the less believable it is. Thus there is a natural tendency for lies to have limited damage. Moreover, the believability of a lie is in direct proportion to the reputation-for-honesty of the lier. But the reputation-for-honesty of a lier diminishes with more and more lies. Again, there is a natural control on the damage that can be done by liers.
| 
