Criminal Libel Has No Place In A Free Society
Gene Policinski writes in Editor & Publisher that libeling somebody -- writing something untrue about a person -- may not only cost you in court, but in about two dozen states, it can land you in jail, and that's wrong:
An AP report cited two criminal libel prosecutions in Colorado in the past two years. In one, a man faced 18 months in prison for sexually charged comments he posted about an ex-girlfriend. The charge was later reduced to harassment. In the second case, a university student faced the threat of criminal charges for creating a satirical blog about a professor. At one point, police searched the student's home and seized his computer. Ultimately, no charges were filed, and the student obtained a $425,000 settlement against the prosecutor who had signed off on the search warrant.The law surrounding defamation -- as with issues such as cyberbullying and copyright protection for music -- has not fully caught up with the challenges and promises of the Internet Age. Some argue that given the relative ease of widely spreading a falsehood online about someone, a criminal charge offers an effective means of punishing those with few assets to pay a civil court judgment.
But the legal point of a defamation lawsuit is lawful compensation for damages, not punishment. Jailing a writer or imposing a criminal conviction on a speaker as a means of holding him or her accountable to the truth has no place in a society based on the vigorous exchange of strongly held views and committed to the marketplace of ideas.
P.S. Policinski seems not to understand that saying something untrue about a person is "slander."
> saying something untrue about a person
> is "slander."
Apparently the fact that someone might have a law degree doesn't mean they understand anything about these matters whatsoever.
Crid at April 27, 2012 12:21 AM
Isn't libel a civil matter? How on earth do civil matters end up in jail??
momof4 at April 27, 2012 6:39 AM
There is a difference between threatening and harassing someone and writing untrue things about them. It should never be a criminal case to libel someone even in the internet age.
I agree that the liabilities cap should be raised in the internet age, but never should include possibility of direct jail time. Now I agree that the person can face jail time for contempt after the case is settled and they don't take the page down, pay on the settlement if capable, or issue an apology if so ordered. But contempt is not respecting the law and a civil society.
Jim P. at April 27, 2012 6:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/27/criminal_libel.html#comment-3163883">comment from CridLove Popehat, Crid -- favorite part of his letter: "your freakishly unprofessional email"
Amy Alkon at April 27, 2012 8:44 AM
Isn't libel a civil matter?
Apparently not in some states were it has be reclassified as also being a criminal offense.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 27, 2012 8:49 AM
Assuming we define libel/slander as something that is
1. Provably untrue
2. Believably untrue. i.e. not something that is so outlandish that no reasonable person could believe it, or something obviously satiric or ironic. That is, comedians should be protected.
3. Maliciously intended.
Why shouldn't these be criminal acts? (For instance, false rape accusations.) If your childhood nemesis opens a restaurant, and you post on Yelp that your salad was full of maggots, that could ruin his business and harm him irreparably. You should be able to post any opinion, such as "This is the worst restaurant in the world." but not false statements of facts.
clinky at April 27, 2012 12:50 PM
And yes, there are way to many laws that criminalize things that don't cause other people harm (Drugs, prostitution, carrying a soda onto an airplane.) I'm all for getting rid of those. But if you say or write something, that is a knowing lie, with the intention of harming something, that should be a crime.
clinky at April 27, 2012 12:55 PM
When Americans laugh at me for the lack of free speech rights here in Canada I calmly point out to them to not be so sure that they have them either.
This example provided by Amy is, sadly, solid proof of that fact.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at April 27, 2012 4:05 PM
Libel and slander are separate issues from free speech. You have right to put your opinions and facts (that won't violate a government secret acts) out to the public.
Libel and slander laws prohibit you from putting out false and negative information as facts.
There is a difference.
Jim P. at April 27, 2012 6:34 PM
I would think that extremely high fines for libel would have as much of a chilling effect as a prison sentence.
Snoopy at April 27, 2012 6:52 PM
> When Americans laugh at me for the lack
> of free speech rights
Don't forget, we also laugh at you for being so enthusiastic about prostitution.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 27, 2012 8:28 PM
I'm with Clinky on this. There should be criminal punishment if a persons' liable or slander causes harm that money can't possibly repair.
It's real hard for a man to escape a pedophile charge. That can be life destroying even if proven false. Job history and references all down the drain. And what if the libeler/slanderer can't pay damages?
I hate to go down the slippery slope, but how is that any better than being caped at the knees or the spine?
Being injured at the spine sounds better. At least their is good parking.
Sorry for the snark but people forget how powerful words can be.
ZombieApocalypseKitten at April 27, 2012 8:35 PM
I disagree. If it is a civil case the judge as part of the decree, in addition to the damages, can order the defendant to produce a letter declaiming the statements.
If it is a criminal case then the "witness" is guilty of perjury. Granted the penalties for perjury aren't very steep. The problem is that the D.A. and the system has been set up in such a way that there is no penalty for perjury. That needs to be changed.
Jim P. at April 28, 2012 8:22 AM
Leave a comment