From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:32:34 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
Message-ID: <199701292232.OAA14206@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) writes:

> At 10:46 AM 1/29/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > * 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 wealthy also use libel suits to suppress dissent.  Greg's point
> that poor people aren't worth suing is only true if the motivation is
> financial.  Often it is not.  Conveniently, many of those whose
> silence is desired are among the petty bourgeouis and have a net worth
> of roughly $50,000.  Enough to make the suit appear legitimate, but
> not enough to allow the target to brush off the legal fees, if they
> win the case.
> 
> Consider also the artificial distinction between private and public
> figures.  It is easier for a private figure to sue for libel.  Yet,
> the most influential people in the country are private figures.
> Reporters must tread very carefully when covering the activities of
> these people.  Thus, we hear little of them.
> 
> It would be interesting to know when libel law was first introduced to
> the United States.  Does anybody know?
> 
> John Peter Zenger

Libel laws were inherited from good old England together with most of common
law.  When I was studying con law, I remember the very interesting precedent
establishing that truth is a defense in a libel suit. Anyone remember the name?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps