Comment by throwawaymaths
20 days ago
> The USA already did:
you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first.
> Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?
> if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first.
This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general.
> to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?
Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
> This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general.
yes, i read the whole thing. as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it, because it makes me question the author's judgement and devalues the arguments downpage. if i were less patient i would have quit after the FOIA part.
> Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
success requires a higher standard. but curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic: eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.
> as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it
I've never found that to be true, because most people recognize that the essay was once in which any of the points individually being correct would make for a persuasive essay. The addition of N examples only reinforces the point N times over.
Thus, any single argument being unconvincing to somebody isn't a huge issue, since all the points would have to be false for the essay to not ring true.
> curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic
That may be so (indeed, we see so in donald's ongoing efforts to limit others' right to redress), but imposing a higher standard for libel of public figures vs. private individuals isn't problematic.
> eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.
This strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy, and one that isn't very convincing in this case. The higher threshold for public figures than private individuals (which is the topic, not curtailment) already exists and has for a while, and the worst thing we've seen is the most public and powerful person in the world still trying to exploit libel law to attack political opponents. So the concern doesn't seem borne out in the data.