"I have not spoken to the people of Cheliax, but I doubt they care, other than those hundreds whose lives Wain saved before she arrived in Westcrown. I do know I see eye to eye with the people of Westcrown, which is overall relieved by both her verdict and the end of wild pamphlets. The delegates of the convention, less so, quite understandably, but in my view incorrectly. I am in any case unconvinced that accusing a judge of poor judgment is neither malicious nor scandalous, especially if it a judge who is deciding the matter. Malicious and scandalous are very broad words that can be interpreted in truly Mephistophelean fashion by anyone who chooses to, and the lines must accordingly be narrow in all other respects. 'Claim or insinuation' is far too broad. Try something else."

Wow, she wants a fight.

The nerve to give him an order like that. He turns his head away from her with an expression of utter contempt and disdain. "I have heard no objections of sensible men, shall we vote on my amendment?"

Solpont's got balls, starting a fight with an archduke. No brains, but balls.

Dear gods. At least that time Solpont decided to be provocative in a helpful direction?

"I certainly agree that restricting the law to direct claims would fail to prohibit many instances of clear slander, including many of the claims that led to the riots. But I worry, Your Excellency, that 'insinuation' might regrettably be interpreted too broadly — under ordinary circumstances, the judge could of course apply his discretion to such cases, but as it stands that is currently impossible. Would 'clear insinuation' be an acceptable phrasing?" That is to say, Solpont is clearly right that they need to cover implicature, but he doesn't want the Archduchess trying to convince the floor that this would outlaw anything that could possibly be interpreted in a negative way.

"'Clear and intentional' would, I think, largely address my objection to the amendment, Conde Castell. Other than outlawing something already twice-banned."

"If it gives less ammunition for lies to Valia Wain and the Archduchess's faction we can also specify, though it's the plain reading of the law, that a 'scandalous or malicious claim' has never in the law referred to every single potentially negative statement, nor is it intended to here. The claim 'that man drinks to excess' is not scandalous, and is prohibited only if false; the claim 'that man is a Norgorber cultist' will observably move some men to murder him and should be illegal even if the other elements of incitement are not present and even if it is true."

"Why not clear or intentional? I expect either to be sufficient for it to be damaging. Let us not make our crimes so narrow that they can be easily avoided by those with ill intent."

"Clear or intentional seems like a reasonable standard to me."

"Damaging, sure, but not criminal. If a theater accidentally copies my next year's dress for their comic opera's lead and suffers her a great many pratfalls, but they can honestly protest that they picked the dress before I picked my own, I will be mightily annoyed but I have no grounds for an accusation of slander or libel."

He shows the room his new draft.

1) It is a crime to publicly make, aloud or in writing, a false, scandalous, or malicious claim about another person, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim.

2) It is a crime to privately make a false, scandalous, or malicious claim about another person, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, unless the statement is true.

3) Neither of the above statutes shall apply if the claim is made directly to a person empowered to make lawful arrests, as part of a formal investigation of malfeasance, provided that the claim is true.

4) A "scandalous or malicious" claim does not describe every possible negative claim. For example, it is not scandalous or malicious to claim that a man drinks to excess, if such a claim is true. Magistrates are directed to apply their discretion in determining whether a claim is scandalous or malicious.

5) A claim made about a group may be a violation of this statute, if such a claim clearly implicates distinct individuals and this statute would otherwise apply.

The punishment shall be not less than a fine of 10gp and not more than the punishment for the conduct falsely ascribed to them, be it a crime, or not more than exile from Cheliax, if the conduct falsely ascribed to them is not a crime. In cases where a claim violating this law is made intentionally to a wide audience, or published in print to wide distribution, the magistrate should by default apply the maximum sentence, unless the claim is revoked immediately or other mitigating circumstances apply, in which case the magistrate is directed to apply his discretion.

"Are there any further objections before we vote? I have tried to address the other concerns raised as well, but I may have done so imperfectly." That is to say, he made these edits in about a minute and would sincerely prefer not to accidentally pass a law that imposes the death sentence for calling someone ugly in front of a crowd.

"Thank you for your swift work, your excellency. I think this incorporates well the perspectives raised in this committee."

"I appreciate Delegate Montcada's suggestion and I am happy to include it, but I do not think it suffices for the example I gave, where the principal problem is that one man - or woman - reaching someone empowered to make lawful arrests other than the one being denounced is very difficult."

"In the apprehension that making complaints of illegal conduct to the law was impossible Valia Wain decided to make them directly to the people and while you perhaps enjoyed the result no one else did. I do not think we should encourage that."

He nods. "Is there an alternative phrasing you'd prefer that would more clearly reflect your intent, Your Highness? I certainly don't mean to prohibit anyone from Lawfully seeking redress for genuine misconduct, but nor do I wish to allow anyone to whip up a mob with malicious accusations, even if those accusations are true."

"I did not enjoy it. I was fortunate enough not to be attacked myself, but I was worried, as many were, all night. Everyone agrees that speech was a mistake, and the result a disaster after the pamphlets grabbed it, Count Solpont. Select Wain included. She left the country behind immediately to ensure she never makes such a large mistake again. Please cease your insults before they rise to slandering me."

"...There are many cases this would criminalize acting on for accusations very serious but less than criminal, such as charging Mammonian interest while not being actual diabolists. But I will concede that it would be very difficult to fix that without causing at least a low risk of lynching mobs in those cases."

"In the absence of an alternative, I think this wording is as good as we will get in the time we have. I move that we vote."

The Archduchess helped Wain flee the country so she could rabble-rouse from exile and the committee would be unable to stop her. They're always eviller than you think.

"I specified malfeasance with the intention of covering situations in which someone, for instance, informs their count about technically legal misconduct by their baron. With that being said, if there are no further objections, I call for us to vote on this proposal."

"I have two concerns; The first is that I still think it should not be a crime to make true scandalous claims publicly. I understand the worries about people stirring up violent mobs, but those circumstances should already be covered by existing laws regarding incitement; if they weren't, it still seems to me that it would be better to compose or broaden laws forbidding incitement than to make it slander to say true but unflattering things about someone. Second, I think that the minimum fine of ten gold coins is excessive for petty slanders among the common folk. While it might be appropriate to have a fine of that size or larger for slandering a prominent figure whose reputation is highly valuable, it seems disproportionate in those cases where the fine is greater than the financial wealth of both parties combined... Unfortunately, properly addressing this would require a much more complicated law."

"I don't believe there's a currently-in-force decree which describes what is to happen if a fine is beyond the convict's ability to pay."

"I don't think we need a minimum - the magistrate can set the penalty in a manner as to reflect lost income and standing from the slander, at their discretion except in the case where we already established they should issue the full penalty. I'd accept treating true scandalous claims as something other than slander if we had adequate incitement law, but we very evidently don't. The Queen's ban on denunciation lists includes denunciations that are true so I think we are following her example in this."

"It seems to me that making truth a universal defense against slander is a policy that almost necessarily requires good judgment and character on the part of the men the law applies to. But the men of Cheliax are very recently free of Hell, and do not have those virtues needed to refrain from making true but unwise statements, nor for that matter to verify that their claims are actually true. Many of them, too, are well-practiced in the ways of misleading others without saying anything technically false, this being an important skill in the negotiation of infernal Chelish contracts."

He notes down Conde Sopont's proposed revision to the slander law, and deletes some "falsely"s that would otherwise be inconsistent with the text of the law.

1) It is a crime to publicly make, aloud or in writing, a false, scandalous, or malicious claim about another person, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim.

2) It is a crime to privately make a false, scandalous, or malicious claim about another person, or to clearly or intentionally imply such a claim, unless the statement is true.

3) Neither of the above statutes shall apply if the claim is made directly to a person empowered to make lawful arrests, as part of a formal investigation of malfeasance, provided that the claim is true.

4) A "scandalous or malicious" claim does not describe every possible negative claim. For example, it is not scandalous or malicious to claim that a man drinks to excess, if such a claim is true. Magistrates are directed to apply their discretion in determining whether a claim is scandalous or malicious.

5) A claim made about a group may be a violation of this statute, if such a claim clearly implicates distinct individuals and this statute would otherwise apply.

The punishment shall at minimum be a fine that in the magistrate's judgment accurately reflects lost income and standing as a result of the slander, and shall not be more than the punishment for the conduct ascribed to the victim, be it a crime, or more than exile from Cheliax, if the conduct ascribed to the victim is not a crime. In cases where a claim violating this law is made intentionally to a wide audience, or published in print to wide distribution, the magistrate should by default apply the maximum sentence, unless the claim is revoked immediately or other mitigating circumstances apply, in which case the magistrate is directed to apply his discretion.

"I think possibly testimony and verdict at trials themselves should be exempted wholly from the scope of slander."

"Oh, yes, you're right. And statements about the findings of a court of law, if they are truthful, since in that case there is no concern of encouraging mobs to rush to their own judgments."