"Perhaps the minister thought he could stop the spread of the article by talking to the lawyer/blogger. Unfortunately, this is really a futile move because the lawyer/blogger is not the chieftain of the internet world. So how could he be expected to swat everyone who chats on facebook or emails? The people one needs to deal with should be the writer and the newspaper. Having said all this, is suing for defamation the best course for clarifying or settling matters? It is not. This is because winning or losing a case does not make anyone come nearer the truth. If it is used as a process to challenge opinion, it merely ends up stifling the freedom of discussion. If discussion is blocked, it could also give people the impression that there is something to hide. The best way to come to the truth is through open discussion to clarify things. Even if an opinion is true, if it is not debated, it will become, as John Stuart Mill said “a dead dogma”. According to him, differing opinions keep both sides reasonable, and dissent, even if it is false, keeps alive the truth against which it dissents. Not everyone knows something completely. People only know partial truths. In an open discussion, therefore, people will benefit from hearing other fragments of truth. "
Posted on: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 08:57:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015