Right now, two bloggers here are being sued. Everyone's talking about free speech and the right for someone who thinks he's being defamed to sue. It's law, apparently.



I suppose I agree. One recourses to the law when you think you've been defamed and your reputation damaged as as result.



The question (may I say the dilemma) here, is how one can use the law (which is supposed to be "just", but of course, may not be necessarily so) to damage the reputation (and financial standing, not to mention) of someone whom you think has "defamed" you.



Be it the truth or not, if I don't like it, I'll go sue you.



You see the problem here.



The Prime Minister and other parties has said free speech is permitted...but within the boundaries of what is permitted by the law.



But that isn't free speech at all. People won't say anything for fear of being sued. Even be it truth or not.



I'm sure the PM and almost everyone will cry to high heaven should George W. Bush sue his detractors for "defamation". (Of course he can't, says the First Amendment. But consider it hypothetically, of course.)



They would complain about freedom of speech and the rights of the public to speak against what they think is wrong.



Yet, I'm also sure the PM would take some drastic action against a newspaper who criticizes him for "shady and corrupt dealings". It doesn't even have to be as hard as, say, Michael Moore on George W. Bush and his administration. They've just signed their death warrant either way, here.



Hmm...so would a communist government be right in suing a critic of their policies to oblivion for "defamation"?



One wonders. There is free speech (hopefully, it is a right here) and laws against defamation, slander, libel etc.



But I think, you can only have one at the expense of another.



What do you think?