Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:

>Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between
>defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan
>Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of
>interest. The decision itself is online at
><http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol
>=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not
>correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of
>the underlying facts.
>
>Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open
>society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate
>arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate
>anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from
>this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :)

Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 
minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience 
about a previous report on a controversial subject.  They first read a 
letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must 
have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a 
different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction.  
The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been 
unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings.

All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably 
thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by 
definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on 
each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered.   Not 
surprising.   (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at 
least two such letters which could be misused in this way...)

So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED 
defamation laws?  The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them.  A 
few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied 
endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print 
it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us.

A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws 
were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and 
verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of 
whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present.  Explain, for 
example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a 
defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on 
trial for libel in the late 1600's.






Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com