Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
In reply to Re: I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:32
stjames,
In writing about what defamation is, historically, there were laws that punished people for making statements that caused others to be shunned or avoided. These laws were called "loathsome disease" statutes and originated way before AIDS and diagnostic psychiatry were ever known of.
So to use a statement to cause another to be shunned, the defamer would say that the other person has a "loathsome disease" so that others would aviod that person. They would say that the person had a sexually transmitted disease or leprosy or smallpox or the plague. This was carried to its extream in the middle ages where antisemitic people defamed the jews by saying that they spread the plague, or worse, that the plague was brought to Europe by the jews.
Also, to cause shunning of another back then, the defamer would say that the other person is "crazy". The inplication there is to make others aviod the person because "crazyness' was associated with violence and psychopathic murder and such.
So that is where the "loathsome disease" wording came from and it is still used in the language of law today. It is an anachronism.
Today, there are new ways for defamers to use the old method of saying something about another person in order to have others shunn or avoid them. They could say that the other person has AIDS, because they want that person shunned and some people will shunn a person with AIDS out of ignorance of the contagious aspect of the disease. If someone spread that a women has AIDS, she would be shunned by many men who wanted a sexual partner. The defamation occurs when the person defamed is defamed falsely, except in some jurisdictions that do not consider the truth as a defense if the defamation was made with malice to harm.
The "shamfull" aspect of this terminology referrs usually to sexually transmitted diseases back in the past when they were associated with adultery was considerd shamefull. Defaming a women by saying that she has syphilis, let's say in 1920, would cause that women great harm if it was not true.
Today, calling someone "crazy" could be defaming also for it is damageing to the reputation of people to be labled such for some people will shunn or aviod people that are called "crazy" by others, for many have fear of others that are labled "crazy". But today, that word has been replaced by "schizzo" and "manic-depressive and such. So it is defamation if someone calls you a manic-depressive ,without privlege, for they are really using the old mentality of trying to get others to shunn or aviod you. I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull, for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
The hypothetical example that I used about the town meeting about the proposed ban of motorcycles in the town is illistrative of such. And if that was to actually happen to me, I would consider the man's ststement as defamatory.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:252280
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/252496.html