OneAndOneIs2

It's been a long time since I've commented on Slashdot stories. Since I started following Ars, Slashdot has become alarmingly redundant. But in the last couple months, whilst I've been over in America, I've broken my silence and commented on a couple of Slashdot stories.

The first was about cell phones, the second is a recent story about libel. In both cases, arguments have been made by American /.ers that the American way of doing things is the best. In both cases, the logic has seemed completely topsy-turvy.

The first is about cell phone pricing. In America, calling a cell phone costs the same as a normal phone call. In Europe, it is more expensive. The reason calls are cheaper in America is that the owner of the cell phone gets charged to receive calls.

As the current owner of a cheap American cell phone, I find this an incredibly annoying system. I get nuisance calls most days. I've burned through the $15 credit the phone came with, despite having made maybe three phone calls, just because I get so many junk calls that they've wiped out my balance.

This, I was told on /., is a good thing: "I like being able to call any phone for the same cost"

My logic, however, is this: If I call somebody, it is a given that I want to talk to them. If somebody calls me, it *isn't* a given that *I* want to talk to *them*.

So the European system of saying that whoever dials the number pays for the call is, to me, the best: I don't want to subsidise the cost of the calls that I don't want to receive.

The second one, the libel one, arose from a criticism in the NY Times of the British libel system: "in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true."

Damn right, in my book: If you make an accusation, you should have to be able to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

e.g. A calls B a pedophile. B sues A for libel.

American system places the burden of proof on B: He must prove that A committed libel. To do this, he must prove that he isn't a pedophile.

British system places the burden of proof on A: He claimed that B was a pedophile, he either has to justify his words or he's guilty.

Personally, I think the British system is the one I'd want to live in. True, it means that when the matter comes to the court, when B sues A for libel, you could argue it effectively means that A is guilty until proven innocent. But that's not really the case: B has to prove A has said something potentially-libellous. Then the burden moves to A, to prove that what he said was justified. At the end of the day, B's accusation against A hinges entirely upon the veracity of A's accusation against B and the American system ignores that.

What's more, you can't prove a negative: That's a logical absolute. That's why science hasn't eradicated religion: You can't prove God's lack of existence.

So in America, tabloid journalists can say whatever the hell they want about celebrities (and they do!) safe in the knowledge that unless the celebrity can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever is said about them is false, they can't be held guilty of defamation. And such proof is difficult to impossible to provide.

In England, if a journalist says something about a celebrity, he'd damn well better be able to back it up, or he's going down. And good job, too, if you ask me.

So both situations, we have something where I quite honestly can't see how anyone can argue that the American Way is the better of the two. But both times, I've been flatly told that it is.

So I'm curious.. is this the way Americans in general think, or is it just Slashdot trolls biasing the perception?