|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
Why We Don’t
Need Libel and Blackmail Laws
Walter E. Williams
January 24, 2018
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libel and slander laws should be repealed.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 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.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
