For what it’s worth: the troll apparently called Dougherty a “pedophile”, which seems like a little bit more than a “name”, as the article describes it.
The way it’s broadened today, it could mean the person has lewd thoughts about children and might never have molested or intended to molest anyone. Still that is kind of below the belt.
And yet...
On FR there are some regular freepers who make ugly and lewd comments about politicians. I don’t think they should do that without pretty good proof, and sometimes I tell them off for it, but I wouldn’t think that should get them sued. Also when it’s a public figure being panned like that, speculation is better protected by law than if it’s a private figure.
Yes, people ought to be careful, and God cares about careless accusations. But how far should the law go? It used to be accepted that God was the ultimate moral policeman (if we look at it on that level). Those who blasphemed without cause would bring about their own hardships, while those who were thus blasphemed would be vindicated. But in a society that lets the devil dominate it, the rules seem to be inverted. The wicked prosper, the conscientious suffer. And the temptation to step in with a manmade solution grows.
Can I sue any liberal who calls me a “Nazi” then?
Tough issue to find balance on.
I would strongly object if someone called me a pedophile or made any other false accusation. Would I fight it in court? I guess it depends on the damage it does. If it were a run-of-the-mill troll, it’s not worth the effort. Everyone knows what a troll is and does and they are not to be believed.
If a false online accusation took hold and gained credibility, affected my reputation, threatened my job, hurt my family, or something similar, I would go after the person in court.
Maybe the key question is : Who is hurt by the accusation? Usually, it’s the accuser who looks like a nasty, petty liar. In that case the victim suffers little harm. But sometimes, the false accusation sticks and/or damages the victim. Then I think there is a better case.
How about Tina Fey calling Sarah Palin stupid in so many SNL sketches, making Americans believe she thought she could see Russia from her house? They did damage.
How about the NYT accusing McCain of having an affair? That did damage. It wasn’t retracted until it was too late.
How about the guy accused of planting the Atlanta Olympic bomb or the guy accused of sending anthrax? Severe damage.
How about Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying his taxes? That did damage.
I don’t know enough about this case. Was the troll just flinging random accusations, trying to make something stick? Was he just name-calling? (It seems to me that “pedophile” goes beyond name-calling. “Stupid” is name-calling. “Pedophile” seems more targeted.) Did he pick that particular term for a reason - either because there is truth to it or because he wanted to inflict maximum damage? Too many unknowns.