sean@lsuc.uucp (Sean Doran the Younger) (01/25/89)
In article <8901240223.AA03286@gerrard.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) asked: >Can the LSUC crowd set me straight on these fascinating questions? There is hardly a crowd at lsuc, if you mean those of us who have access to the shell (and rn). Of those few who can answer you, there is really only one lawyer, David Sherman <dave@lsuc.UUCP>, but he is a Tax Law specialist who avoids legal discussions not somehow involving tax. Because of his aversion to such discussions, he has gone to Florida and shan't be back until this thread is completely exhausted. I am not a lawyer, and have no plans to be one. I do have some knowledge of Common Law and the Canadian Criminal Code among a few other legal goodies, and shall try to be of some help. If you want a better answer, consult a solicitor who deals with tort law (especially defamation), or a bencher. You can likely find both types lurking about City Hall. Another source for definitive answers to your questions is the law professor -- they live on most University campuses. Now, for my best stab: >Does the "presumption of innocence" apply to dead people too? After >all, you can hardly hurt me after I'm dead -- specifically, you can't >deprive me of any of my constitutional rights, since I presumably >don't have any -- so you ought to be able to call me a "criminal" >without incurring the Wrath of the Law. The dictionary says a criminal >is someone who has committed a crime, so if (for example) I was seen >breaking into a house I could sensibly be described as a criminal. >Certainly I can never be convicted of any crime, since I'm dead, >and it would be silly to go on calling me "alleged"; we don't have to >use formal legal standards of proof to govern everyday speech. Under English Common Law (and, presumably, under Canadian Common Law), a suit for defamation (libel or slander) against the dead cannot succeed unless the offended survivors can prove that the defamation is so defamatory that it brings serious injury (e.g. contempt) upon them. Even if that is proven, the injury must be so grievous as to likely provoke a breach of the peace. Except under exceptional circumstances, libel and slander of the dead is not actionable by the survivors. >On the other hand, my family and friends and even complete strangers >might think it indecent of you to blame me unfairly for misbehaviour >of which I was not (legally? in everyday English?) guilty. It would be indecent of someone to speak ill of the dead, for the dead have no means of self-protection. The quote in the Summary line (from Voltaire's _Lettres sur Oedipe_ no. I) is one of many warnings to be kind to the reputations of those who have died. >Can they >apply for legal remedies, like suing you? Or would that only be if >they themselves have been harmed by your accusations? If not, do >they have to rely on my biographers to set the record straight? W. Gladstone, the Prime Minister (of the United Kingdom) had taken on the job of rehabilitating London's prostitutes during and before his career as a Liberal Member of Parliament. This was to satisfy his Victorian conscience and his strict religious beliefs, and was generally seen by his associates as awfully damn decent and charitable. His opponents used this charity as a political weapon, and pointed out that, as he kept the company of prostitutes, and spoke with them in public, and visited them in their rooms, he must be sleeping with them. Moreover, some of his opponents alleged that he was the lover of Lillie Langtry (the actress) and other women of lesser station. Slanderous remarks along these lines were commonplace while he was alive. Thirty years after Gladstone's death, then Captain Peter Wright (that Name again...) wrote a book of essays which happened to state that Gladstone was an utter hypocrite who spoke in public using 'the language of highest and strictest principle' and languished in public, sleeping with 'every sort of woman'. His sons, who were properly outraged, were deprived of the right to sue, but they did plan to libel and slander Wright to such an extent that he would be forced to launch a suit, which would allow the whole story to be aired and would allow the two surviving brothers a chance to clear their father's name. The lawyers for the defence were quite brilliant, and caused Captain Wright's statements to be publically riven over the five-day trial. Facts were scarce, and survivors less plentiful, and Mr Wright was unable to disprove the accusations that he was nothing but a journalist raking rumour and conjecture across Gladstone's reputation. Captain Wright's case collapsed completely on the fifth day, and the presiding JP ordered him to pay the defendants' legal costs -- the very large sum of #5000 sterling. Thus, although the best way to ensure that one's posthumous reputation remains unsullied is to have an excellent biographer who keeps meticulous records in order to disprove any rumours, one can indirectly rely upon tort law to punish one's detractors after one is dead. ----------- Sean Doran the Younger <sean@lsuc.UUCP> | Using the Law Society's computer a/s The Law Society of Upper Canada | does not mean I use their opinions. Computer Education Facility | However, all those barristers and Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Canada | solicitors would come in very handy lsuc!sean@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu | if someone decided to sue me. {uunet!attcan mnetor att pyramid!utai utgpu utcsri utzoo ncrcan}!lsuc!sean -- -
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (01/25/89)
Sean Doran the Younger (sean@lsuc.UUCP) writes: > It would be indecent of someone to speak ill of the dead, for the dead > have no means of self-protection. The quote in the Summary line > (from Voltaire's _Lettres sur Oedipe_ no. I) is one of many warnings > to be kind to the reputations of those who have died. The quote in question was: > On doit des e'gards aux vivants; on ne doit aux morts que la ve'rite'. of which the last part may be translated: "to the dead we owe only the truth". But speaking the truth is exactly what this thread is about. The word "murderer" means, not one who was convicted of murder, but one who commits murder. In the case of a person who died before any trial could occur, we are left to our own devices in determining what we believe to be truth. If we are sure about the facts, "murderer" *is* the thing to say. Mark Brader "'Taxpayer' includes any person SoftQuad Inc., Toronto whether or not liable to pay tax." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Income Tax Act of Canada, s.248(1)