I accept that abuse of libel law is possible. And that therefore libel should be strictly limited to a sincere apology, expressed as “loudly” as the libel itself was. Plus court costs for defending an unsupportable libel in court.If you say something untrue about me, I have to give you notice that it’s untrue, and provide some justification for my claim. If you promptly withdraw, and retract at least as visibly as the original libel, that should be that. It’s only if the libel is repeated and not retracted that I should have the right to recourse in court.
But that assumes that the libel goes no further than your publication. The reality is that the wire services create a cartel among journalists. One member lies, and another swears to it. All in the name of “objectivity,” don’t you know. The wire services are a solution to a Nineteenth Century problem - very expensive telegraphy bandwidth. Now telegraphy bandwidth is virtually free in comparison. We don’t need no stinking wire services. The Internet does just fine, thank you - and individual publications and even individual reporters can be on the playing field with the big boys. The wire services should be dismantled - and the cartel behavior which they have inspired must be suppressed in the individual presses.
The trouble with Sullivan is, as I noted, that Republicans can’t prove facts in court. Without that, Democrats are entitled to their own facts. Hello, Kavanaugh hearings and the untrammeled propaganda campaign which followed them.
I note that in asserting that pre-Sullivan politicians did in fact have the right to sue for libel. Which implies that the Warren Court legislated in Sullivan.
I thank you for responding. I want constructive criticism.
“I note that in asserting that pre-Sullivan politicians abused their right to sue for libel, you are stipulating that politicians did in fact have the right to sue for libel before Sullivan. Which implies that the Warren Court legislated in Sullivan.