I ask AI this question : Does suing people for defamation and silencing discussion makes a good government looks better or worse?

[disconsolate]

AI replied:

Politicians may abuse defamation laws to silence criticism, harass opponents, or intimidate the press.

This can involve filing frivolous lawsuits, using defamation to stifle free speech, or leveraging the process for political gain.

While defamation laws are intended to protect reputations, their misuse can undermine democratic principles and create a chilling effect on public discourse.

Elaboration:

• Silencing Critics:
  Politicians may use defamation lawsuits to intimidate journalists or activists who criticize their actions or policies. The threat of legal action can be a powerful tool for silencing dissent, even if the allegations are not true.
• Harassing Opponents:
  Defamation lawsuits can be used as a form of political harassment against opponents, making it difficult for them to campaign or run for office. The costs of defending a lawsuit, both financially and in terms of time and energy, can be significant.
• Intimidating the Press:
  Politicians may sue journalists or media outlets for reporting on controversial topics, effectively creating a climate of fear and self-censorship. This can make it harder for the press to hold those in power accountable.
• Using Defamation as a Political Weapon:
  Politicians can use the threat of defamation lawsuits as a way to manipulate public opinion and undermine their opponents' credibility. This can involve making false or misleading statements that are later used as the basis for a lawsuit, or simply using the threat of a lawsuit to intimidate opponents.
• Undermining Free Speech:
  The abuse of defamation laws can create a chilling effect on free speech, as people may be less likely to express their opinions if they fear being sued. This can lead to a less vibrant and democratic public discourse.
• Examples:
  There have been numerous cases where politicians have been accused of abusing defamation laws for political gain. Some examples include lawsuits against journalists who reported on corruption, lawsuits against activists who protested government policies, and lawsuits against opposition politicians.

 

[congo9]

Suing people for defamation can have mixed effects on a government's image, depending on the context and how it's handled:

- Looks worse if it appears the government is using defamation suits to silence dissent, criticism, or public discussion. This can be seen as authoritarian and damaging to freedom of speech and democratic principles.

- Looks better if the suit addresses genuinely false and harmful accusations that threaten public trust or safety. In such cases, legal action can be seen as a defense of truth and order.

Ultimately, transparency, accountability, and proportionality are key. Governments seen as open to criticism and fair in law enforcement tend to gain more long-term credibility.

 

[NanoSpeed]

The words uttered are clearly defamatory. The first post was ok. The subsequent post where he pretended to speak in the capacity of Su Haijin - that one was damaging. You can say you don't believe, and that is not defamatory. You can raise doubts, but don't give your own version as if it's a matter of fact.

His only hope is to rely on the defense of fair comment on an issue of public interest. That the matter is of public interest is glaring. If the matter is dealt with at the stage Summary Judgment at the Registrar's Office, then the statements will not be tested in Court.

 

[A Singaporean]

AI got this wrong. PAP is even popular with Sinkies when they sue, screw, cheat and lie.

 

[disconsolate]

The words uttered are clearly defamatory. The first post was ok. The subsequent post where he pretended to speak in the capacity of Su Haijin - that one was damaging. You can say you don't believe, and that is not defamatory. You can raise doubts, but don't give your own version as if it's a matter of fact.

His only hope is to rely on the defense of fair comment on an issue of public interest. That the matter is of public interest is glaring. If the matter is dealt with at the stage Summary Judgment at the Registrar's Office, then the statements will not be tested in Court.

Sammyboy Forum Senior Counsel @NanoSpeed 真棒

 

[tobelightlight]

Can ask AI why Sinkies are so dumbfucked.

 

[True Believer]

AI got this wrong. PAP is even popular with Sinkies when they sue, screw, cheat and lie.

It is true as far as 65% of the population is concerned.

 

[NanoSpeed]

Sammyboy Forum Senior Counsel @NanoSpeed 真棒

I repeat : "I'm only an expert in annulment of marriage on the grounds of non-consummation."

Everything else is AI and Google, ok ?

 

[disconsolate]

I repeat : "I'm only an expert in annulment of marriage on the grounds of non-consummation."

Everything else is AI and Google, ok ?

You are also King of CDC & GSTV

 

[NanoSpeed]

You are also King of CDC & GSTV

King is @sbfuncle

I'm a Voucherologist, though.

 

[Leongsam]

You need to ask the right AI and frame the question the right way. Here's the output from Grok.

 

[tobelightlight]

The words uttered are clearly defamatory. The first post was ok. The subsequent post where he pretended to speak in the capacity of Su Haijin - that one was damaging. You can say you don't believe, and that is not defamatory. You can raise doubts, but don't give your own version as if it's a matter of fact.

His only hope is to rely on the defense of fair comment on an issue of public interest. That the matter is of public interest is glaring. If the matter is dealt with at the stage Summary Judgment at the Registrar's Office, then the statements will not be tested in Court.

Wah..u sound like law expert leh..can u pls explain the infectious disease Act to pple. So can understand why pple go jail when
they choose not to vaccinate.

 

[bobby]

Litigation and private defamation suits is popular in SG solely because the judicial system in SG is very biased to a certain party.

It is a guaranteed win verdict by ball-less judges under instructions from their bosses.

 

[tobelightlight]

You need to ask the right AI and frame the question the right way. Here's the output from Grok.
View attachment 220356

Can ask why Sinkies are so dumbfucked?

 

[sbfuncle]

King is @sbfuncle

I'm a Voucherologist, though.

Can I say I'm a gamblerogist?
I felt like one KNN

 

[True Believer]

Litigation and private defamation suits is popular in SG solely because the judicial system in SG is very biased to a certain party.
It is a guaranteed win verdict by ball-less judges under instructions from their bosses.

In most democratic countries, the judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting and upholding the constitution, acting as a guardian of its principles and ensuring that legislation is constitutional. When the judiciary bows to the legislature like in S'pore, this constitutional role is undermined.

 

[NanoSpeed]

Can I say I'm a gamblerogist?
I felt like one KNN

KNN, you are just a punter.

 

[sbfuncle]

KNN, you are just a punter.

KNN at least add a special in front
Special punter can anot

 

[bobby]

In most democratic countries, the judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting and upholding the constitution, acting as a guardian of its principles and ensuring that legislation is constitutional. When the judiciary bows to the legislature like in S'pore, this constitutional role is undermined.

Only in dictatorships are mata = army = judiciary = gahmen = civil service

 

[True Believer]

Only in dictatorships are mata = army = judiciary = gahmen = civil service

S'pore has been referred to as a socialist democratic society, but the truth is that we have an authoritarian regime.