ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Walter Williams: We Don't Need Bad Law

January 23, 2018 | 9:51 AM EST


President Donald Trump said, "We are going to take a strong look at our country's libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts." The president was responding to statements made in Michael Wolff's new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House."

Our nation does not need stronger laws against libel. To the contrary, libel and slander laws should be repealed. Let's say exactly what libel and slander are. The legal profession defines libel as a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Slander is making a false spoken statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.

There's a question about reputation that never crosses even the sharpest legal minds. Does one's reputation belong to him? In other words, if one's reputation is what others think about him, whose property are other people's thoughts? The thoughts I have in my mind about others, and hence their reputations, belong to me.

One major benefit from decriminalizing libel and slander would be that it would reduce the value of gossip. It would reduce the value of false statements made by others. Here's a Gallup Poll survey question: "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio — when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly — a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?" In 1976, 72 percent of Americans trusted the media, and today the percentage has fallen to 32. The mainstream media are so biased and dishonest that more and more Americans are using alternative news sources, which have become increasingly available electronically.

While we're talking about bad laws dealing with libel and slander, let's raise some questions about other laws involving speech — namely, blackmail laws. The legal profession defines blackmail as occurring when someone demands money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information. I believe that people should not be prosecuted for blackmail. Let's examine it with the following scenario. It's 5 o'clock in the morning. You see me leaving a motel with a sweet young thing who's obviously not Mrs. Williams. You say to me, "Professor Williams, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees me the right to broadcast to the entire world your conduct that I observed." I believe that most would agree that you have that right. You then proposition me, "If you pay me $10,000, I will not exercise my right to tell the world about your behavior."

Now the ball is in my court. I have a right to turn down your proposition and let you tell the world about my infidelity and live with the consequences of that decision. Or I can pay you the $10,000 for your silence and live with the consequences of that decision. In other words, blackmail fits into the category of peaceable, noncoercive voluntary exchange, just like most other transactions. If I'm seen voluntarily giving up $10,000, the only conclusion a third party could reach is that I must have viewed myself as being better off as a result. That's just like an instance when you see me voluntarily give up money for some other good or service — be it food, clothing, housing or transportation. You come to the same conclusion.

What constitutes a crime can be divided into two classes — mala in se and mala prohibita. Homicide and robbery are inherently wrong (mala in se). They involve the initiation of force against another. By contrast, blackmail (mala prohibita) offenses are considered criminal not because they violate the property or person of another but because society seeks to regulate such behavior. By the way, married people would tend to find blackmail in their interest. Extra eyes on their spouse's behavior, in pursuit of money, would help to ensure greater marital fidelity.

SamFox

Can't say I agree much with this article. No has some kind of 'right' to spread lies about others. If they do, then all that is needed is an accusation. No proof, just the accusation. Coming out the hotel with a pretty girl in itself is only evidence that you came out of a hotel with a pretty young woman. The reason is not known, but suppositions can come. How would the observer of the two leaving a hotel together KNOW there was an affair? My 1st thought would be "These days, with all the attention being given to people, who is stupid enough to come out of a hotel with some one they were having an affair with if that news got out it would damage their 'reputations' or marriage(s)? Maybe some thing else is the reason."

The take on blackmail is absurd. Blackmail is forced theft that the one being blackmailed is involuntarily corrorced into paying in order for a guilty party & the blackmailer to hide a damaging truth. Hiding the truth is always a bad idea. Sooner or later the truth will come out.

Billy Goat & Hilldabeast Clinton are great examples of cover-ups falling apart. It's taken some time, but their criminality is being exposed.

SamFox

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Sam: I think from an Economist's stand point Williams make very plausible points. You're take on blackmail is flawed....you could very easily be blackmailed on false information as well...the possibility of the truth eventually coming out; want standup as well! 90% of all murders are never solved..but lives still destroyed! Unfortunately time has a way of easing the guilt or changing the climate to the point that no one cares anymore!

okie don

Defamation of character.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Wasn't a very good analogy, was it?



The truth does have a way of making itself known eventually, doesn't it? However, This idea that blackmail is 'forced theft' doesn't really tell the whole story. He is correct in his statement that the person being blackmailed is being offered a 'good'. That 'good' being the silence of the blackmailer. The person being blackmailed does have a choice in that he can pay up and enjoy the silence or refuse to pay and face the consequences of the knowledge becoming public. A third option would be to 'silence' the blackmailer more permanently, but that, of course, is also illegal.



Ah, Slick Willy and the HilLiar. Now there's a couple of real professionals. A total 'class act' if there ever was one. That's two people you wouldn't offer silence to for money. That ain't how they roll. There is a long (some would say very long) list of people who have come to terrible 'accidents' or 'committed suicide' right before they were scheduled to testify against one or the other (or both) of them. No, there is no 'decision making' with those two, it's always the 'third option'.

ExperienceCounts

Here's something I remember a preacher saying about our actions and words, he had a coat rack he indicated as he spoke:
every time you lie or gossip, you drive a spike into this wood,
even if you tell the truth and you mean to hurt someone you are driving a nail in the wood,
when you hit out at some one you are driving more nails in the wood.
When you say "sorry" and mean it you remove the nail or spike you put there.
Now you see that piece of wood there, it was once a beautiful coat rack, with a shiny, smooth unblemished surface.
Look at it now, weathered and aged, riddled with holes, still holding odds and ends of nails and spikes.
The holes are there because amends were made for reason the nails were driven,
restitution for the nails and spikes still there need to be addressed,
some of the old, rusted, twisted nails, will never be removed, the persons who need restitution for words or actions are unavailable, too damaged, or dead.
Remember this, all actions and words have consequences, they can leave scars on others as well as yourself.
I should know, that's my coat rack, my dad gave it to me when I was 16, and thought myself a man.
He told me when to drive nails in it, and when I could remove them.
If you had a coat rack, what shape would it be in? Think about it.
Let us pray.

Well, that's it or as well as I remember it. Scripture: 10 commandments, "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not create false witness", "Thou shalt not kill"
He went on to tie it in with slandering someone, killing their reputation, and "knowing to do good and doing it not, to him it is a sin."

Still remember the gist of it, although it's been decades.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Wouldn't 'slandering someone, killing their reputation' sit right there under "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Wow !!! OK...lets say your blackmailer gives you a reasonable price and you pay it and you're happy for the time being. Six months later the blackmailer comes back and says he made some bad bets at the races. He wants more money. Is it your fault that he made bad choices with YOUR money? Nope ! Is it fair to him to say he wants more money ? According to you, it's perfectly fair. The only way to remedy this is to sign a contract, but then there is a paper trail about what it is you don't want known. So no to that too. Well, how do we fix it ? Easy...make a law to stop the greed. Wait a minute, we already did that.
Reputation ? People spend a lifetime building a reputation. When someone falsely attacks a reputation, the 'owner' of it can easily be damaged in the eyes of of onlookers. A few years ago, a high school principle was accused of sexual misconduct by a student. The girl later said she was just mad at the principle because he had punished her for some thing she had done. In the meantime, the principle committed suicide because he knew that even though he was innocent, his reputation would be ruined and his life with it. So a reputation is owned by the person who built it, and it can be attacked and damaged similar to beating up someone's car. Therefore, laws must be enacted so that an innocent person can collect damages, both personal and punitive from an attacker.
According to you, you don't own your own car. It's in my mind so it belongs to me. Possession son...that's the key. Who possesses the car or the reputation? Is it the owner or the people that think about it?
My goodness !!! And you teach college students ???

maryjane

Since libel and slander compose the majority of what we see and hear today, obviously, the related laws we already have mean nothing, so no need for more such.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

So true. Why create more laws when the ones in existence are not enforced?