From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:42:33 -0800 (PST)
To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Subject: Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
Message-ID: <199701300442.UAA01122@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:20 AM 1/29/97 -0500, aga wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote:

>> One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the 
>> standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is 
that 
>> it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for 
>> defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail.  Civil libel is, 
>> therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping 
>> the masses in line.  
>> 
>> 
>> Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in 
>> civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area.  If 
anything, 
>> the ability to sue for libel makes things worse:  There is an illusion that 
>> this is easy and straightforward, if not economical.  It is neither.  The 
>> result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed 
>> falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it 
>> couldn't be printed.

>Interesting analysis here, but remember; libel is just one kind of
>"defamation" and an action for defamation will always be actionable.

Sure about that?!?

>The constitution gives us the right to call the President a
>motherfucker any time we want to,

yes...

>and it also gives the motherfucker
>the right to sue.

While admittedly it has been a long time since I've read the entire US 
Constitution, I am not under the impression that it does what you claim.  
Could you be more specific about the particular section which does this?


>  Sueing is better than fighting in the streets.

For the LAWYERS, who are paid regardless of the outcome, that certainly 
appears to be the case.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com