From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:25:05 -0800 (PST)
To: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
In-Reply-To: <199701290507.XAA02510@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970129112308.30306C-100000@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> [Cc to Dr. John Martin Grubor, Law Systems Institute]
> 
> Jim Choate wrote:
> > 
> > It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects
> > libelous or other defamatory speech. 
> 
> [I would appreciate if people with better knowledge of law correct me]
> 
> I doubt that anyone made this assertion. What Greg Broiles and Dr.
> Grubor asserted was that because of the first amendment, the government
> can not initiate an action in a libel case. Which means that libel is
> not a crime. There may be some old statutes that declare libel a crime, 
> as Greg noted, but they are not enforceable because of the first amendment.
> 
> Suits can be brought by private individuals though.
> 
> The government, even if it is defamed, cannot sue a private person 
> for libel. For example, I can say that Congress regularly molests
> small children, and they will not be able to do anything about me.
> 
> > This is hokem. The 1st most certainly does not protect lies in any form. It
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > protects opinion, this is distinctly different then stating a untruth about
> > some party or distribution of material with the attributation to them
> > without their permission.
> 
> Not exactly. 
> 
> I can lie as much as I want about the government. No one would be
> able to prosecute me. These particular lies are protected, contrary
> to what you state.
> 
> The law does not protect ALL opinions, as well.
> 
> > No civilized society can exist that permits lies and other defamations of
> > character and expect to survive for any length of time. Simply for no other
> > reason than contracts and other such instruments would not be worth the
> > paper they were printed on. Let alone any laws or other issuances from the
> > government itself.
> 
> You are mixing in totally unrelated things, Jim. Enforcement of contracts
> has nothing to do with freedom of speech. For example, if you borrow $100
> from me and fail to return your debt in time, this is an issue of contract
> law and not of free speech.
> 
> Contract law is not about speech, it is about promises.
> 
> > 				ARTICLE I. 
> >  
> > 	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
> > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 
> > and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
> >  
> >  
> > Where in there do you see a right to lie, cheat, or steal? If it did, it
> > would be a lie because it would not protect the very freedom it says it is.
> 
> Do you think that all rights should be found in the first amendment?
> What does the right to steal have to do with what we are talking about?
> 
> I suggest reading "The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom
> of the Press in America", by Lucas a Powe, Jr.
> 
> As for stealing and cheating in contracts, read any textbook on business
> law for business students. It is very useful to read this stuff, by the
> way.
> 
> Not that these books give one a complete picture on law, but they
> are very informative.
> 
> 	- Igor.
> 

Most business Law is covered by the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)

And business Law really has nothing to do with libel, which is just a
tort.