Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?

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

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.