Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:28:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases.
Really? And what if the out come is nothing more than a public statement in the local newspaper that the original statement was not true and paying the court costs? I doubt you will find a single attorney who will take the case because there is no profit for them.
If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead of whether or not the victim of libel has sued.
Really? And just exactly do you base this assumption on? Historicaly it would seem that people want to believe the dirty grit about people. If they didn't they wouldn't make the National Inquirer as successful as it is. No, in general people don't give a crap about the real truth or falsity of the statement unless it directly impacts them in some manner. What they are interested in is entertainment, something the law should not provide. The real issue is whether a Democracy can exist in an environment where there is no requirement of honesty and truth from its citizens. I would contend that it can't since the democratic process itself is representative of those people and their beliefs. If you really and truly belive a democratic society can exist with no recognition of and protection for reputation we will just have to respectfuly disagree. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage@ssz.com