From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:48:32 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
In-Reply-To: <199701290611.WAA20631@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970129104044.9355C-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A couple points:

* The 1st Amendment does protect some lies. If I say "Jim Choate is a
Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie, but I doubt
you'll prevail in a libel suit. What damages do you have? That's the key,
I believe -- the statement has to lower you in the opinion of others.

* Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. 
It is, they say, a rich man's game -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm
probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover,
if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it
creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is
certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) 

* The concept you may be searching for is consensual speech, which I
believe a society should tolerate. Libelous speech isn't consensual,
though obscenity is.

-Declan


On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects
> libelous or other defamatory speech. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 				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.
> 
> 
>                                                   Jim Choate
>                                                   CyberTects
>                                                   ravage@ssz.com
> 
> 
>