Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan

[Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>]

jim bell wrote:

> 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.

  Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me.
 
> 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.

  Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves:
  "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'.
and,
  "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow."

> 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.

  Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is
libel
and defamation. Go figure...

Toto