the principle of alterum no laedare does not seek a perfect world. i dont get it why ALL of you keep on equating it to utopia or perfection. what it seeks is just this: that the world could at least be a tolerable place to live in.

chill people. let’s just live and learn.

and perhaps, one day, we won’t just pound on the fact, on the law or on the table, but throw the pounding out of our system all together.

(of course, then again, without contradictions, we’ll all be dead)

Was it worth it to offend someone?

I don’t know about the next person, but for me: hell no.

And you are absolutely right: ‘nothing is ever just anything’.

remember malu fernandez? ok, so malu wrote one entry - ONE entry - and ka-putt. was it just and fair for her to be treated in such a way? we can argue over that for hours on end. in the end, you only get what you put in.

why the law? why the ethics? why the political “chenelou?” because that’s exactly what “do no harm” is.

nothing is ever “just” anything.

This leads me to question: did the ‘irresponsible blogger’ destroy the reputation of the person blogged about? Was this person mentioned (and repeatedly mentioned)in the blog entry of the ‘irresponsible blogger’ as someone who is not fit to be part of the society? Is it just and fair (to the ‘irresponsible blogger’) to compare what her or she wrote about in that blog entry to that of a crime (as we are now talking about the RPC and the CC)?

Hmm, it must have been one hell of a destructive blog entry. The person blogged about must have been scarred for life, reputation damaged to the public (or the cyberspace in this case?) forever, ostracized and gravely humiliated. Should we now put that ‘irresponsible blogger’ to jail for bringing upon that fate?

Before we do that (and be unfair to the ‘irresponsible blogger’!), can we ask first: was it just a trivial blog entry that was the fruit of the ever-changing and colorful human emotion and observation that leads to opinion (and in this case, a blog entry)?

I hope next time we read about a seemingly slanderous or libelous blog entry, let us think first and ask ourself: it is just to JUDGE (and put to trial) a person’s emotional musings? Hmm, I guess not. Not unless of course, it was done purposely (and concealed under the veil of emotional blogging) to be a means of destroying one’s reputation.

Then we can all live in an ideal world of Alterum No Laedare.

I just have to add, of no significant importance: Critical reading is as important as critical writing.

Until then, this is indeed a sick sick unjust world we have to live in—but that does not spare us from the responsibility of changing for the better.

(P.S.
I hope this comment does not make a violator of the Alterum No Laedare principle.)