Calling Someone Gay \ Slander ?

[MrRealDeal]

Ny district court has ruled being called gay when not, is not slanderous enough to recieve damages for that alone , and said perhaps in the past might have been but in todays world it is not ...... I guess that's good news.

[isanbirder]

Where is your district court? In some places your note might be very good news; in others it might be commonplace.

[MrRealDeal]

It was the 1st Distric Fed court of NY ..... It's not commonplace at all for people to win damages just for being called gay unless they have other real damages which is just fine as it would be for any other slanderous remark. The point is that while you probabbly would win damages for being called a child molester with no other real damages , this court at least has recognised that being called gay is not a damagable offence because being gay is not a bad thing to be.

It's like 100 years ago if a newspaper printed that you were black you could probabbly sue for damages on that alone , but obviously today that would look foolish because peoples understand of good and bad has improved.

[LeCharivari]

.... The point is that while you probabbly would win damages for being called a child molester with no other real damages , this court at least has recognised that being called gay is not a damagable offence because being gay is not a bad thing to be....

That's not quite what they said. He didn't prove "specific harm" or the likelihood of "pecuniary damages", which he would have had to prove whatever he was called in order to claim damages:

The court noted that because the man did not assert specific harm, the false statements must amount to "'slander per se'—those categories of statements that are ... injurious by their nature, and so noxious that the law presumes that pecuniary damages will result." The court acknowledged that while falsely calling someone gay may have fallen into this category in the past, a "tremendous social evolution" has greatly reduced the stigma associated with homosexuality. The court's decision does not bar recovery for plaintiffs who can demonstrate that specific harm occurred due to a false assertion of homosexuality.

[MrRealDeal]

It wasn't exactly what they said, but it has the exact same meaning .... rendering your post pedantic

[LeCharivari]

It wasn't exactly what they said, but it has the exact same meaning .... rendering your post pedantic

Pedantic, possibly, but I'm afraid that its not "the exact same meaning". The court did NOT "recognise that being called gay is not a damagable offence" - it simply said that he hadn't proved damage. Given the lack of laws on discrimination in employment, adoption and housing in most States, for example, calling someone "gay" could have considerable consequences in many parts of the US - even in New York, which has some of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.

Odd that someone who has such a fixation about the differences between gay marriage and civil unions should agree with you .... no, on second thoughts not odd at all ...

[MrRealDeal]

I clairfied what I said before that quote .... once again rendering your post pedantic .... and unnecessarily argumentative ......... And you are just plain wrong it's a Fed district court and it made it quite clear that NO case under it's juristiction will be won by claiming being called gay is so offensive that it deserves compensation without actual damages.

[MrRealDeal]

It's not that he didnt prove specifc harm since you want to be pedantic about it , it's that he didn't even assert any specifc harm in the first place, and was only asking for damages asserting that being called gay is slander per se ...... and as i pointed out the court said it's not , it's not that he failed to prove it as you mistakenly think, it's that the court said that it's not possible to prove because of a "tremendous social revolution". What it effectivly did was say anyone who thinks being called gay is slander per se is simply wrong and don't bother filing any more lawsuits in the 1st district based on that alone. Not because you may or not be able to prove it but because you CAN"T prove it because the court has decided it's not slander per se.

As far as my fixation you have it backwards , my point on that is anyone who is fixated on a particular word as opposed to equal rights not only would lose the argument, but is fixated on the wrong thing, and could possibly risk losing the actuall rights because they didn't like the word used to obtain them.

Edited June 1, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[LeCharivari]

As far as my fixation you have it backwards , my point on that is anyone who is fixated on a particular word as opposed to equal rights not only would lose the argument, but is fixated on the wrong thing, and could possibly risk losing the actuall rights because they didn't like the word used to obtain them.

You seem to be misreading what I've written. Two nations divided by a common language again. My point was simply that damages could still be claimed for being called gay as long as you could prove that damage was caused; I subsequently clarified this with the point that due to a lack of anti-discrimination laws calling someone gay could still cause them direct damage, which it can't in some countries. No big deal.

Far more importantly, you've mis-read me again: I wasn't referring to your fixation - far from it, I agree with you 100% on that issue, in fact I couldn't agree with you more on that as I have said many, many times!

[MrRealDeal]

Well we get to the bottom of it and agree ! lol .... It's no doubt my fault for such poor grammar and poor ability to get my points across as well as I should ... so no worries and I hope to keep up the conversations in the future.

[LeCharivari]

In hindsight, Mr RD, I think it says more about differences in our cultural perspectives than it does about differences in linguistics as we've each looked at different aspects of the judgement as being of importance.

In your case (I think) you've looked at from an American perspective and seen it as progress - an incremental step, where being gay is no longer considered on a par with being a child molester, etc, but is no more of a "bad thing to be" than, say, being called a dolt or a half-wit. To you, that shows that your courts and your country's on the right course.

In my case I've looked at it from the perspective of someone whose country (countries, actually) has strong legislation against discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual preference and who was disturbed that (at least in certain States and situations) if you called someone gay when they weren't (made a false assertion of homosexuality) and that caused them specific harm and pecuniary damage then they could successfully sue for damages, while if you called them gay and they were (made a true assertion of homosexuality) and that caused them similar harm and damage they just had to accept it. To me, that shows just how much your courts and your country support discrimination and how far you have to go in terms of human rights.

[pjbradley]

To you, that shows that your courts and your country's on the right course.

...To me, that shows just how much your courts and your country support discrimination and how far you have to go in terms of human rights.

Well, yeah: as you point out, the US is far from a gay paradise, and yes, as RD points out, the courts and laws, as reflected by changes in US society, are on the right course. Why not enjoy every small step? After all, acknowledging progress doesn't require suspending movement forward. If that were the case, parents, for example, could never praise positive steps in a child's development lest that freeze progress.

You raise an interesting legal issue about the outing of someone precipitating grief on the outed person's part. While strong anti-discrimination laws would contain much of that objective grief (e.g., losing a job for being outed as gay), such laws couldn't mitigate any emotional fallout or damage to various personal relationships. If a legal case were to develop from your example, it might focus on whatever laws exist to preserve someone's privacy, especially if the outed person isn't a public figure.

[LeCharivari]

.... Why not enjoy every small step? ...

why not indeed ... as long as its clear that these are small steps and that the "child" concerned doesn't go around belittling the progress of others.

[MrRealDeal]

In hindsight, Mr RD, I think it says more about differences in our cultural perspectives than it does about differences in linguistics as we've each looked at different aspects of the judgement as being of importance.

In your case (I think) you've looked at from an American perspective and seen it as progress - an incremental step, where being gay is no longer considered on a par with being a child molester, etc, but is no more of a "bad thing to be" than, say, being called a dolt or a half-wit. To you, that shows that your courts and your country's on the right course.

In my case I've looked at it from the perspective of someone whose country (countries, actually) has strong legislation against discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual preference and who was disturbed that (at least in certain States and situations) if you called someone gay when they weren't (made a false assertion of homosexuality) and that caused them specific harm and pecuniary damage then they could successfully sue for damages, while if you called them gay and they were (made a true assertion of homosexuality) and that caused them similar harm and damage they just had to accept it. To me, that shows just how much your courts and your country support discrimination and how far you have to go in terms of human rights.

It would depend on the situation but in general that's correct as the truth is a defence , but that's not a human rights issue it's an issue over truth. And in america we prefer to protect peoples right to tell the truth.

In a situation like that the Lawsuit would be over "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and in that case the truth is not a defence.

So to say they just have to accept it is simply not correct their are other re dresses available just not slander is all.

But sure we have a ways to go on this issue and plenty of other issues as well. No one said we were forming a perfect union .... just a more perfect one than before !

[Ijustwannateach]

Speaking of which, there was not an alleged outing, but an actual outing combined with a video of a student's roommate having sex with a male partner- which led to his suicide- and the 'outer' was considered culpable. However, it was combined with the video, which may have violated other laws than those involving slander/libel.

[LeCharivari]

Speaking of which, there was not an alleged outing, but an actual outing combined with a video of a student's roommate having sex with a male partner- which led to his suicide- and the 'outer' was considered culpable. However, it was combined with the video, which may have violated other laws than those involving slander/libel.

That was the Tyler Clementi / Dharun Ravi / Molly Wei case, where Ravi and Wei posted a video of his Rutgers room-mate Clementi kissing another man and three days later Clementi committed suicide. Wei and Ravi faced 15 charges centred around Invasion of Privacy (sex crimes) and Bias Intimidation (hate crimes).

Wei made a plea bargain and gave evidence against Ravi, getting sentenced to 300 hours community service and counseling, while Ravi refused to make a plea bargain saying that "If I took the plea, I would have had to testify that I did what I did to intimidate Tyler and that would be a lie. I won’t ever get up there and tell the world I hated Tyler because he was gay, or tell the world I was trying to hurt or intimidate him because it’s not true." Ravi was recently sentenced to 30 days jail, 3 years probation, a $10,000 fine and counselling. The prosecution and defence have both appealed the sentence.

Clementi was already out, despite the media hype: "It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet."

Legal culpability for "outing" someone in the US is unclear, whether its true or not - look at JohnTravolta, for example, who stands to lose financially (leading roles, etc) whether some of the recent media reports are true or not.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker#ixzz1yKKvreay

[tombkk]

Hm. In the US, people sue each other for being called gay? What a waste of resources. Whatever happened to growing up?

[LeCharivari]

If you're not gay and if being called/considered gay can mean that you could lose your job or not get appointed/promoted for that alone (as it does, quite legally, in some parts of the US) then I think people have a right to protect their livelihoods as well as their reputations - unfortunately "growing up" is something that is taking a long time both in and for the US.

[tombkk]

If you're not gay and if being called/considered gay can mean that you could lose your job or not get appointed/promoted for that alone (as it does, quite legally, in some parts of the US) then I think people have a right to protect their livelihoods as well as their reputations - unfortunately "growing up" is something that is taking a long time both in and for the US.

Alright then. Can I sue somebody who incorrectly calls me straight? If not, I'll sue the system.

[LeCharivari]

If it caused you "specific harm" or "pecuniary damages", for example if it resulted in your losing your job, I am sure you could. Unless you're a gay porn star or represent the Castro, though, I doubt if that would apply.

[tombkk]

If it caused you "specific harm" or "pecuniary damages", for example if it resulted in your losing your job, I am sure you could. Unless you're a gay porn star or represent the Castro, though, I doubt if that would apply.

If being called gay or straight causes losing my job, I will sue my employer, not the person who said that.

In case of being a public figure (such as an actor or an official representative), it goes with the job that people invent stories. I'll know that in advance.

[beano2274]

How is the Original post in the forum - Gays in Thailand - actually related to Thailand.

But, was Karon not recently accused of calling his opponent in local elections a Gay?

So in Thailand it might be slanderous and could result in court action.

[tombkk]

How is the Original post in the forum - Gays in Thailand - actually related to Thailand.

But, was Karon not recently accused of calling his opponent in local elections a Gay?

So in Thailand it might be slanderous and could result in court action.

In this subforum, gay topics don't need to be Thai-related. Kindly check out post #2 in the pinned topic.

I don't know about Karon, but kindly note that any posts that can be understood as libel or slander according to Thai law will be deleted and the poster warned. See forum rule #6:

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

[LeCharivari]

If it caused you "specific harm" or "pecuniary damages", for example if it resulted in your losing your job, I am sure you could. Unless you're a gay porn star or represent the Castro, though, I doubt if that would apply.

If being called gay or straight causes losing my job, I will sue my employer, not the person who said that.

In case of being a public figure (such as an actor or an official representative), it goes with the job that people invent stories. I'll know that in advance.

I don't know if we're talking at cross purposes or you're dreaming, Tom.

This thread is about the law in the US, where there is as yet no Federal law preventing discrimination in the private sector on the grounds of sexual preference/orientation and no such law in over half the States, where your employer can quite happily fire, hire, promote or demote you just because you are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, etc., and legally there is nothing you can do about it.

[tombkk]

If it caused you "specific harm" or "pecuniary damages", for example if it resulted in your losing your job, I am sure you could. Unless you're a gay porn star or represent the Castro, though, I doubt if that would apply.

If being called gay or straight causes losing my job, I will sue my employer, not the person who said that.

In case of being a public figure (such as an actor or an official representative), it goes with the job that people invent stories. I'll know that in advance.

I don't know if we're talking at cross purposes or you're dreaming, Tom.

This thread is about the law in the US, where there is as yet no Federal law preventing discrimination in the private sector on the grounds of sexual preference/orientation and no such law in over half the States, where your employer can quite happily fire, hire, promote or demote you just because you are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, etc., and legally there is nothing you can do about it.

I am sorry to read your report about about the US. Are you saying it is not a developed country?

[MrRealDeal]

Hm. In the US, people sue each other for being called gay? What a waste of resources. Whatever happened to growing up?

They don't sue people for being called gay , they sue people for causing harm over lying about them being gay. America is more developed in some places than others thats for sure .... but overall the number of people wanting to do bisness , die in the desert to get here , come from Asia as the now largest imigrant group , seem to think we are developed enough ...... Any country that leaves trash on the moon qualifys as developed enough , the country that actually picks it up and throws it away wins the race.

[LeCharivari]

I am sorry to read your report about about the US. Are you saying it is not a developed country?

I haven't made any "report" on the US - simply pointed out what the law in this particular instance says. To say or imply that the US was not a "developed" country would be entirely wrong, as developed / undeveloped / industrialized / third-world, etc, are specific terms that refer to economic and industrial development and the HDI and have nothing to do with cultural development, human rights, etc.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LeCharivari