From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:10:49 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
In-Reply-To: <199701290442.WAA07196@einstein>
Message-ID: <199701290507.XAA02510@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


[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.