My point is that it is right or wrong depending upon an individual's own viewpoint. No one else can tell them it's right or wrong.
Well of course; that's kind of why the law doesn't define right and wrong and can only ever approximate.
I mean, I could accuse any dead relative of yours of anything I wanted to... it would be completely legal. But I don't think you'd see it as being right. I don't think many people would (fortunately for you, myself included).
Well of course; that's kind of why the law doesn't define right and wrong and can only ever approximate.
I mean, I could accuse any dead relative of yours of anything I wanted to... it would be completely legal. But I don't think you'd see it as being right. I don't think many people would (fortunately for you, myself included).
I wouldn't like it but I would have no authority to stop you from doing it. Therefore you can do it.
Because I've read or seen people recount experiences of Savile who knew what he was up to as they saw evidence of it first hand... That plus the fact that it turns out his predelictions & behaviour was widely known...
I wouldn't like it but I would have no authority to stop you from doing it. Therefore you can do it.
Which isn't the same thing as it being right or wrong.
Legal and illegal is a completely different argument from right and wrong.
I think the OP's question has to do with right and wrong- legal and illegal don't really enter into it. And wouldn't lead to much in the way of interesting discussion- if his question was "is it legal to do this", then the answer would be "yes", and we could all go home. But it isn't. It's more interesting than that.
Which isn't the same thing as it being right or wrong.
Legal and illegal is a completely different argument from right and wrong.
I think the OP's question has to do with right and wrong- legal and illegal don't really enter into it. And wouldn't lead to much in the way of interesting discussion- if his question was "is it legal to do this", then the answer would be "yes", and we could all go home. But it isn't. It's more interesting than that.
So who gets to decide if it is right or wrong to libel the dead?
So who gets to decide if it is right or wrong to libel the dead?
That's exactly the question the OP's asking, isn't it?
I'm not a big fan of it, tbh (although "libel"'s not really the right word, because that IS a legal term, and libelling the dead is impossible. The law, btw, NEVER decides whether ANYTHING is right or wrong- just whether it's permissible or forbidden).
Now, I would say it was wrong to lie about the dead. Assuming, as I do, that Saville did the stuff he's accused of, I don't think he's being lied about. However, where it becomes interesting is that I also think it's wrong to have no differentiation between allegation and proof. There can be allegations I believe are true, and which probably ARE true- and there can be proof. They're different things. The only immutable one is "truth", and that's what an inquiry is for.
There is a legal right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty... but like most rights you have to be alive to be benefiting from it and I don't feel myself morally obliged to stick to it anyway. Short of hauling his corpse into court for a show trial he won't be found guilty in a court of law... that doesn't make him innocent.
So who gets to decide if it is right or wrong to libel the dead?
It isn't necessarily 'who gets to decide', maybe it's a moral issue where the individual and a wider society deem it right or wrong. To me it feels wrong that you can say whatever you want about anyone once they are dead, legal or not. I don't hear of many people crashing funerals with outrageous claims simply because it would be legal. I suspect most people think that making such unwarranted claims is morally wrong.
Because I've read or seen people recount experiences of Savile who knew what he was up to as they saw evidence of it first hand... That plus the fact that it turns out his predelictions & behaviour was widely known...
He was quite brazen about it.
The same people who sat back and did nothing?
I find it odd that despite the abuse happening all over the country through several decades and JS being "hardly secret" with the abuse, there is apparently no substantial evidence against him.
There is a legal right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty... but like most rights you have to be alive to be benefiting from it and I don't feel myself morally obliged to stick to it anyway. Short of hauling his corpse into court for a show trial he won't be found guilty in a court of law... that doesn't make him innocent.
We have on record people's accounts who were are either personally abused by Savile or personally saw him abuse others...
A massive(and frankly quite scary) amount of rape and sexual assault cases in the UK never get to court even with detailed accounts so ,while the the people in this case may be genuine,it doesn't mean they'd have enough evidence to to get to court,let alone for a jury to find him guilty.
I find it odd that despite the abuse happening all over the country through several decades and JS being "hardly secret" with the abuse, there is apparently no substantial evidence against him.
I find it odd that despite commenting on the case here, you don't seem to have read much about it...
Many people reported him & were either ignored, laughed at or told, as was one BBC employee - not to tell anyone or they could all lose their jobs.
What kind of evidence are you expecting from historic sex offences beyond the first hand testimony of victims & witnesses of his behaviour?
A massive(and frankly quite scary) amount of rape and sexual assault cases in the UK never get to court even with detailed accounts so ,while the the people in this case may be genuine,it doesn't mean they'd have enough evidence to to get to court,let alone for a jury to find him guilty.
Saviles victims couldn't even get past making an initial complaint to their local police. It is truly shocking!
I wouldn't like it but I would have no authority to stop you from doing it. Therefore you can do it.
That's why I think it's usually wrong to make claims once someone has died that were not made in life. The surviving relatives will have the consequences to deal with, not the dead. To answer the ops question, I think it's wrong (in most cases)
I find it odd that despite commenting on the case here, you don't seem to have read much about it...
Many people reported him & were either ignored, laughed at or told, as was one BBC employee - not to tell anyone or they could all lose their jobs.
What kind of evidence are you expecting from historic sex offences beyond the first hand testimony of victims & witnesses of his behaviour?
There have been many prosecutions of historical sex abuse, confined to a much narrower location, time frame and number of victims, and presumably abusers who were secretive.
Many people reported him based on "my friend told me that ...." , which 30 years later becomes "I told the police what he was up to with the kids, but they laughed at me".
Comments
I can't help but think you're being unnecessarily antagonistic. I applaud the OP for finding a pearl of debate in the JS quagmire.
To the OP, I say JS hasn't been found guilty, JS has been accused.
I'm pragmatic; I decide if JS was guilty based upon the evidence, the arguments for and against.
It's all any of us who eventually die can hope for. Money runs out, propaganda fades, how you're remembered is what matters.
My point is that it is right or wrong depending upon an individual's own viewpoint. No one else can tell them it's right or wrong.
Yes, that's why I mentioned consequences earlier.
Well of course; that's kind of why the law doesn't define right and wrong and can only ever approximate.
I mean, I could accuse any dead relative of yours of anything I wanted to... it would be completely legal. But I don't think you'd see it as being right. I don't think many people would (fortunately for you, myself included).
Agreed
Apart from what's been in the papers what else do we actually know?
I wouldn't like it but I would have no authority to stop you from doing it. Therefore you can do it.
Because I've read or seen people recount experiences of Savile who knew what he was up to as they saw evidence of it first hand... That plus the fact that it turns out his predelictions & behaviour was widely known...
He was quite brazen about it.
We have on record people's accounts who were are either personally abused by Savile or personally saw him abuse others...
Which isn't the same thing as it being right or wrong.
Legal and illegal is a completely different argument from right and wrong.
I think the OP's question has to do with right and wrong- legal and illegal don't really enter into it. And wouldn't lead to much in the way of interesting discussion- if his question was "is it legal to do this", then the answer would be "yes", and we could all go home. But it isn't. It's more interesting than that.
So who gets to decide if it is right or wrong to libel the dead?
That's exactly the question the OP's asking, isn't it?
I'm not a big fan of it, tbh (although "libel"'s not really the right word, because that IS a legal term, and libelling the dead is impossible. The law, btw, NEVER decides whether ANYTHING is right or wrong- just whether it's permissible or forbidden).
Now, I would say it was wrong to lie about the dead. Assuming, as I do, that Saville did the stuff he's accused of, I don't think he's being lied about. However, where it becomes interesting is that I also think it's wrong to have no differentiation between allegation and proof. There can be allegations I believe are true, and which probably ARE true- and there can be proof. They're different things. The only immutable one is "truth", and that's what an inquiry is for.
It isn't necessarily 'who gets to decide', maybe it's a moral issue where the individual and a wider society deem it right or wrong. To me it feels wrong that you can say whatever you want about anyone once they are dead, legal or not. I don't hear of many people crashing funerals with outrageous claims simply because it would be legal. I suspect most people think that making such unwarranted claims is morally wrong.
I find it odd that despite the abuse happening all over the country through several decades and JS being "hardly secret" with the abuse, there is apparently no substantial evidence against him.
Exactly!
A massive(and frankly quite scary) amount of rape and sexual assault cases in the UK never get to court even with detailed accounts so ,while the the people in this case may be genuine,it doesn't mean they'd have enough evidence to to get to court,let alone for a jury to find him guilty.
I find it odd that despite commenting on the case here, you don't seem to have read much about it...
Many people reported him & were either ignored, laughed at or told, as was one BBC employee - not to tell anyone or they could all lose their jobs.
What kind of evidence are you expecting from historic sex offences beyond the first hand testimony of victims & witnesses of his behaviour?
Saviles victims couldn't even get past making an initial complaint to their local police. It is truly shocking!
That's why I think it's usually wrong to make claims once someone has died that were not made in life. The surviving relatives will have the consequences to deal with, not the dead. To answer the ops question, I think it's wrong (in most cases)
I know and thats what makes me wonder what actual evidence exists.
Many people reported him based on "my friend told me that ...." , which 30 years later becomes "I told the police what he was up to with the kids, but they laughed at me".