Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment

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

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