This whole law is all just a plot to get the entire convention executed by the nobles for saying things they dislike, isn't it.

Finally they can have something to charge the Galtans with! DOWN WITH SLANDER!

Well, she's not sure she means to lend her voice to the Calistrian's, but she'll say what she meant to say.

"I got up to say that I understand that the queen has granted an amnesty, for all crimes committed before the war. So be it. We will all see our justice in the end. But there will be no trials for old wounds, and so it seems to me that this law says we must never speak of them. Suppose a woman was raped, and can never see justice. Is she forbidden to publicly name the father of her child? Or, if she does, must she lie about her own part in it, to protect the reputation of the man who injured her? Should she hide, not only what she knows of others, but what she knows about herself?

My business is quieting the unquiet dead. The worst cases are those in which a death hides some great injustice, and the spirit returns, again and again, until the injury is known. Most don't need blood, but many need the injury to be heard, and recognized. Ban speaking of such things, and the dead must speak for themselves.”

Clap clap clap!

The boss already raised his issue with the law and got the other nobles to back down. So Iker really shouldn’t, but— he still cheers when the girl conscript from Army committee calls half the officers fools. 

This proposal is really terrible. First they're going after the freedom of the pen in general, and now this? For a moment she considered going up on the podium to argue in favor and try and see if she could kill it that way, but by that point Victoria was already in line and her worlds wouldn't have any effect rallying against her if they could also rally against Victoria on the other side. Instead she's just going to stay out of the proposal altogether, hope some of the mitigations pass, and vote against it without expecting to succeed.

Man, this proposal is terrible! He's so much better at slandering people than all his competitors, and now they want to level the playing field? None of the proposed amendments even help.

"Here are some words I've heard spoken, that left the wreckage of lives in their wake. 'Well, you know, she calls herself a virtuous woman, but her carriage was accosted by bandits on the streets last month and you know what happened after that.' Should a woman have no recourse if this is said of her, just because it is true? Must her life be ruined by malicious gossips with the backing of the law so long as they denounce people only for ills they really suffered? That's not how the law works in civilized countries.

'I don't really think that his child is his, as I've heard it rumored his wife had lovers while he was away'. Is the sincere belief of the speaker sufficient to make this legal to shout before an enormous assembled crowd? Remember, the proposal doesn't require the child actually not be the man's, just that the speaker truthfully report having heard it rumored.

'That man burned children to death in their homes, not that I recommend anyone go do anything about it'. Should that be legal? Do we really need to learn this lesson? Did we not learn it last week? Incitement requires intent. But things like this should be illegal to say even if you sincerely don't intend to cause the violence you inevitably will.

Some truths are private. They should be legal to speak, but not before a crowd. It is part of a defense of words, if they are true. It should not absolutely and fully immunize their speakers against the wreckage they can wreak. It is not a defense of repeating a rumor to say 'I heard a rumor that' before you repeat it. It is permissible for the victims of terrible crimes to want the details not shouted in the streets. You can still tell people! Just - in the quiet of a home, not the chaos of a salon. Everyone has the right to say the truth, but not to shout it to a crowd. If there's some wrong that was done you five years ago - tell your friends. Don't take it to the streets. It won't help, and it might make things a lot worse. We do all have to live with each other. 

I don't think it's scandalous or malicious to say that the army is not presently in a fit state to serve the Queen, nor that we will need to train a good many officers to make it suitable. If when you say that it's with malice in your heart then that's yours to pray on, but I expect you say it with the aim of improving the army. Most things that can be said in a scandalous way can also be said in a reasonable way, if they're worth saying at all.

Also I say - all of the people who worked with Valia Wain ought to be ashamed of themselves, having the nerve to come up here and without apologizing insist they know what people should be allowed to say. I don't know if what they did was a crime but if it wasn't a crime then it's because they had no idea what they were doing, so they should have a bit of humility and give their victims time to bury the dead before they start telling the rest of us how important it is to be able to say awful things like that." 

He smiles and nods at the anonymous speaker. What a sensible, reasonable man.

He will applaud at this anonymous speech; it seems anonymity was not a total waste of time.

So, when do we kill all of Valia Wain's friends, then?

She applauds!

(Anonymity is great because he doesn't have to worry about offending his Archduchess.)

This is all pointless. It doesn't actually matter if you can imply that a woman isn't virtuous. No one really believes that anyone is in the first place.

Really, it's a service, telling people which lies they ought to be telling now.

It's a good sign that the radicals all know they're going to lose and are sticking to proposing amendments, but that doesn't mean anyone with sense should be ready to let them succeed. There are a lot of things to like about the new government but the way that the rabble has gotten mouthy is definitely not one of them.

He'd gotten in line to speak in favor of the bill and then his fucking archduke decided to speak out against it. He's not nearly stupid enough to try and use anonymity as a shield, not against a fucking Thrune. Maybe it's not even safe to vote against it.

“This convention’s work is greater than any petty gossip or embarrassed feeling.  To do its work, it needs to be able to consider all of its delegate’s understanding of the truth.  If someone takes your true words and twists them and leaks them to vile criminals do you want to risk being put on trial for that?  The proposed amendments address most of my concerns.  As to this proposal’s effect on slander outside the convention… I ask you to consider… do you think giving up your ability to speak true words publicly is worth the protection against true words spoken against you?  At the very least, the proposal’s current language gives only a single example of a negative but non-slanderous statement, I would like to hear more examples of such added to it to illustrate the concept for any prosecutor or judge tasked with enforcing or ruling on this law.”

Yeah, actually. Yes. One hundred percent into giving up the ability to speak true words to prevent people from saying true words about him, if it's going to go anything like last time.

....admittedly, Valia recanted, and as far as he can tell recanted out of sincere desire to speak the truth. But one should speak the truth carefully, or even the cause of truth itself is not served.

What, is she stupid? Of course nobody cares about actually saying the truth in public, everyone knows you're just supposed to say what they tell you to. It's like listening to a child but he can't even suggest her parents have her beaten for her stupidity.

"I would of course be happy to provide such examples, Delegate Iroria. One might say truthfully of a man that he is lazy, or that he sells goods of a poor quality, or that he is unattractive, or that he is a coward, or that he often shows up late to his work. All of these are negative; none of them are slanderous, if they are not spoken out of malice. 

I do not believe your concerns about delegates being prosecuted for their speech here are warranted, provided that speech is well-considered and not criminal. But I certainly would not wish for every disagreement to degenerate into false accusations of diabolism, for example, as might happen if delegates are granted immunity from the law. This law does not prohibit anyone from calling another delegate's words ill-chosen, foolish, or wrong."

Is that actually sufficient?  Well she’s not going to speak out of turn, she’ll see if he includes them in the final text of the proposal before the vote so she has until then to make up her mind.

She saw Enric in line, maybe he’ll have a good point to decide the issue for her.

This guy would definitely rather that people think twice about accusing him of being a Mammonite, especially since it's true.

A law that will ban people from spreading malicious rumors? It's not a perfect bill, but it definitely has his vote.

“Can the things you just said wouldn’t be slander get written down on the law? It’s important to know who is lazy or dishonest or sells tools that break in a week. Those things cause damages, but if it’s true that a man is lazy, he deserves it if no one hires him.”

“I think it should be the same for some scandals too. I’m not sure how to write it into a law but sometimes… If a rich man messes around with all his servants, that’s not a crime if it’s not a fight. But everyone should know to stop their sisters and daughters working for that man. If a woman’s been going to town or the city alone, families setting up marriages should know about things like that. If saying something is a scandal, but it’s true and people need to know, should be able to say it.”

This bill is great! Almost everyone else will stop slandering people once it's illegal, and people like him who are good enough to not get caught will reap the rewards! Maybe he can even pin some of his slander on other people, get them coming and going.

"Of course, Delegate Porras, I'd be happy to add those examples to the law explicitly." He does.

"As for your second point, those certainly seem like matters that people have an interest in discussing privately. Warn your daughter about men to stay away from, in the privacy of your own home, but don't give a speech about it in the town square, don't print an advertisement about it for anyone to read. The law does not prohibit men from speaking truly to each other in private, even if the matters they speak of could lead to scandal."