libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?

jim bell jimbell at pacifier.com
Wed Jan 29 20:42:33 PST 1997


At 11:20 AM 1/29/97 -0500, aga wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote:

>> 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.

>Interesting analysis here, but remember; libel is just one kind of
>"defamation" and an action for defamation will always be actionable.

Sure about that?!?

>The constitution gives us the right to call the President a
>motherfucker any time we want to,

yes...

>and it also gives the motherfucker
>the right to sue.

While admittedly it has been a long time since I've read the entire US 
Constitution, I am not under the impression that it does what you claim.  
Could you be more specific about the particular section which does this?


>  Sueing is better than fighting in the streets.

For the LAWYERS, who are paid regardless of the outcome, that certainly 
appears to be the case.


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list