From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:20:53 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
In-Reply-To: <199701290344.TAA03473@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970129111502.30306B-100000@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote:

> At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote:
> >
> >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> 
> >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel
> >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government
> >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured
> >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case.
> >> 
> >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, 
> >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in 
> >> some places) still  on the books.
> 
> >
> >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY
> >unconstitutional.  The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws
> >from being made against libel.
> 
> You'd think that, wouldn't you?  Yes, I agree that those laws are 
> unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does 
> today.  Sigh.
> 
> Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from 
> an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted 
> the power to punish people who were too outspoken.  The fact that they are 
> "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their 
> unconstitutionality.  Criminal libel statues should also be considered 
> unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to 
> decide whom to prosecute.  His friends will never be charged, but his 
> enemies will.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

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

The constitution gives us the right to call the President a
motherfucker any time we want to, and it also gives the motherfucker
the right to sue.  Sueing is better than fighting in the streets.

This is the SLOWEST I have ever seen Telnet, today.