Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
But that is stupid. According to your argument if you murder somebody in a very illegal way you have bot broken the law unless a court convict you.
|
Pretty much.
At least in countries where you are innocent until *proven* guilty.
Until then you are merely *accused* but not convicted.
Calling somebody a murderer (or tax evader) without actual proof of conviction is slander and actionable in many countries. Also, some countries have specific laws for product slander to deal with people who spread *negative* lies about products or companies. (Positive lies are handled separately, under avertising fraud laws.)
Of course, there are still places like the old soviet union where anybody accused of anything was presumed guilty and had to prove their innocence. Absent any evidence pro or con, they would be jailed.
And, yes, that included accusations of slander (against the state).
Although those more often than not involved sending the accused to mental institutions; under the assumption that anybody who woud dare speak up would have to be mentally ill and divorced from reality.
There at two distinct mindsets at work: one style of regimes starts out from
the premise that *everything* is legal until *proven* to be a violation of the common good and a specific law is passed. The second style of regime starts out from the premise that everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed by law.
As always, in these issues, it really all goes back to Salamis, and the question of whether people belong to the state or the state belongs to the people.
Here:
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=...Aw&redir_esc=y
Of course, all politicians, regardless off regime, believe people only exist to pay taxes. So their solution to everything that annoys them is usually a new tax, direct or indirect.
What varies from country to country is the citizen's attitudes towards geting fleeced.