☀Ignite Your Creativity☀ discussion

This House Believes That Religion Should Reserve the Right to Hold Authors of Books Containing Conspiracy Theories Guilty of Defamation When Negative Effects on the Perception of Said Religions can be proven.

The above motion means that any religion can sue an author, e.g. Dan Brown, for creating/publicizing a conspiracy theory for defamation, assuming that the book is proven to make people have a bad perception about the religion in question. Confusing, but thought-provoking.

Please respect everyone's views, and don't start any fights! :)

Who is Dan Brown? and why should we sue? I would understand the guy who killed nineteen people and wounded much more...even a three month old baby in The Dark Knight Rises...in a movie theater! Except that he should be killed for what he did did.

I would think you can't sue about Conspiracy Theories Guilty of Defamation When Negative Effects on the Perception of Said Religions can be proven because you can't prove religion is true.

Anna wrote: "Who is Dan Brown? and why should we sue? I would understand the guy who killed nineteen people and wounded much more...even a three month old baby in The Dark Knight Rises...in a movie theater! Exc..."

That guy should be strapped to ole sparky not sued...