webdiplomacy.net

I think i might have made an assertion that Octavious agrees with when I disagreed with C&D's post that offence cannot be given, but only taken.
I would surmise that C&D uses this proposition that offence cannot be given, only taken to somehow justify some form of license for him to make offensive comments yet claim he has caused no offense, that is, he can say whatever he wants with no responsibility for any offence that is caused.
If his ridiculous proposition was correct, then there would be no laws against libel and defamation.

Libel and defamation require a statement to be a public misrepresentation; they have nothing to do with whether a statement is offensive or not.

In fact using an offensive value judgment instead of making a statement of fact is a way to work around libel laws; the reason Penn & Teller's TV show is called "Bullshit" is because if they called it "That's Not True", people would be able to sue. (They might not win, but the lawsuits wouldn't be automatically invalid).

That may be correct Incrementalist, but I was concerned with "to cause" in that it had been asserted that offence is not caused, but taken.
A defamatory or libelous statement causes damage to a person's reputation & I emphasise that it "causes" damage to a reputation. The damage to the reputation is not "taken"
That is my point.

I the amount of compensation is partly linked to the degree of damage caused to reputation as well