Posted on 01/24/2018 6:59:03 AM PST by Kaslin
President Donald Trump said, "We are going to take a strong look at our country's libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts." The president was responding to statements made in Michael Wolff's new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."
Our nation does not need stronger laws against libel. To the contrary, libel and slander laws should be repealed. Let's say exactly what libel and slander are. The legal profession defines libel as a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Slander is making a false spoken statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.
There's a question about reputation that never crosses even the sharpest legal minds. Does one's reputation belong to him? In other words, if one's reputation is what others think about him, whose property are other people's thoughts? The thoughts I have in my mind about others, and hence their reputations, belong to me.
One major benefit from decriminalizing libel and slander would be that it would reduce the value of gossip. It would reduce the value of false statements made by others. Here's a Gallup Poll survey question: "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?" In 1976, 72 percent of Americans trusted the media, and today the percentage has fallen to 32. The mainstream media are so biased and dishonest that more and more Americans are using alternative news sources, which have become increasingly available electronically.
While we're talking about bad laws dealing with libel and slander, let's raise some questions about other laws involving speech -- namely, blackmail laws. The legal profession defines blackmail as occurring when someone demands money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information. I believe that people should not be prosecuted for blackmail. Let's examine it with the following scenario. It's 5 o'clock in the morning. You see me leaving a motel with a sweet young thing who's obviously not Mrs. Williams. You say to me, "Professor Williams, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees me the right to broadcast to the entire world your conduct that I observed." I believe that most would agree that you have that right. You then proposition me, "If you pay me $10,000, I will not exercise my right to tell the world about your behavior."
Now the ball is in my court. I have a right to turn down your proposition and let you tell the world about my infidelity and live with the consequences of that decision. Or I can pay you the $10,000 for your silence and live with the consequences of that decision. In other words, blackmail fits into the category of peaceable, noncoercive voluntary exchange, just like most other transactions. If I'm seen voluntarily giving up $10,000, the only conclusion a third party could reach is that I must have viewed myself as being better off as a result. That's just like an instance when you see me voluntarily give up money for some other good or service -- be it food, clothing, housing or transportation. You come to the same conclusion.
What constitutes a crime can be divided into two classes -- mala in se and mala prohibita. Homicide and robbery are inherently wrong (mala in se). They involve the initiation of force against another. By contrast, blackmail (mala prohibita) offenses are considered criminal not because they violate the property or person of another but because society seeks to regulate such behavior. By the way, married people would tend to find blackmail in their interest. Extra eyes on their spouse's behavior, in pursuit of money, would help to ensure greater marital fidelity.
Those who would like to dig deeper into blackmail can go to http://tinyurl.com/ybvxzaan.
Nope. The abundant witness of the Founders was that a bible philosophy, which robustly stands for what I just outlined, is the only valid moral foundation for this constitution. Never ever confuse means with ends. It is literally glory of God or bust.
The founders of this country were able to separate their personal religious beliefs from their desire to create a government that is required to respect individual rights. Our government has legal obligation, it does not have moral obligations. Individuals have moral obligations.
With that said, if our society as a whole does not maintain some level of morality, it is very likely that our Constitution will ultimately fail, as it will also fail if our government fails to uphold its legal obligations.
The purpose of the act of slander and libel is to promote Mob Rule and motivate others to destroy the target finally provoking murder.
There MUST be serious punishment for this serious crime against another person to deter this tactic.
The pen IS mightier than the sword, and is a more deadly weapon.
False Witness should ALWAYS be punished most severely.
Libel and slander committed for profit, or for the destruction of the person in question, both require knowledge that the statements made are untrue. For “public figures”, I believe the standard includes a phrase like “actual malice”.
The issue with the last part of that standard is that the courts have made proving actual malice almost impossible.
Knowingly promoting falsehoods against a person, public or private, needs to remain illegal IMO. To do otherwise is to allow any scandalous pronouncement to unknowing recipients to destroy a person.
Let’s say I have a good reputation as a businessman, and I am working to secure a contract with a prospective client. A competitor, also desiring the contract, makes knowingly false statements alleging dishonesty on my part to the client, or in a way where the client hears about them second-hand. The client walks away, based on the known lie.
How can this scenario be interpreted that no harm is done? That is the issue - that a person may knowingly use lies to injure another person. Absent strong but balanced libel and slander laws, there is no recourse to solve the issue (being that physical confrontation would break other laws).
With loss of one’s reputation, careers, livelihoods and even friends and family can be lost.
...and lots of it. We need "Loser Pays" laws.
Read the end of it. Year of our Lord is in it.
You are like fish arguing that water is irrelevant to fish food. Leave that water then if you must. The consequences demonstrate how much the fish food is now worth.
Also witness the history that led to the compilation of the constitution. Of all people, Benjamin Franklin recommended prayer when negotiations came to an impasse. He reasoned that if a sparrow cannot fall apart from the will of the Father, how less likely that an empire would rise without His aid. And Franklin wasn’t what we might call a religion monger. The impasse thereupon broke.
Now perhaps a whole history worth of evidence does not move you and that is your choice. But it doesn’t excuse you from the real consequences of not being moved.
You have made no effort whatsoever to even try to understand the point I was making regarding the difference between our society and our government, so there is no further need for me to respond to your posts.
Your way leads to a theocratic government, which is most assuredly not what our founders envisioned.
You are shirking the effort — not I. You might try not lying and not misunderstanding and not setting up strawmen. You have something like Christianity Derangement Syndrome.
If you’d ever follow my history you would see how over and over I urge that the evangelist and not the politician is the capstone here. When the early colonists said No King But Jesus, did that confer your strawmanned theocracy? No. In fact read what George Washington the avowed Christian wrote to Jews. It wasn’t a religious harangue. It was remarkably like our modern Dispensational view.
Educate yourself and you will not criticize others with a small mind.
And to further clarify... A small mind of yours.
The libel and slander laws are fine.
What we need is “loser pays” to reduce
frivolous, blackmailing lawsuits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.