CHAPTER VII THE SLANDERER AND LIBELER
It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with
whom one is in agreement.
But the crucial test concerns controversial speech, statements which we may consider vicious
and nasty and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty.
Now there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel.
We must therefore take particular care to defend the free speech rights of libelers,
for if they can be protected, the rights of all others who do not give as much offense
will certainly be more secure.
But if the rights of free speech of libelers and slanderers are not protected, the rights
of others will be less secure.
The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the protection of the rights of
libelers and slanderers is clear.
Libel is ruinous to reputations.
Harsh tales about lost jobs, friends, etc. abound.
Far from being concerned with the free speech rights of the libeler and slanderer, civil
libertarians have been concerned with protecting those who have had their reputations destroyed,
. . .
Of course, civil libertarians would deny that their objection to slander and libel commits them to the view described.
They would admit that a person's reputation cannot always be protected, that sometimes it must be sacrificed.
But this, they might say, does not exonerate the libeler, for a person's reputation is
not something to be taken lightly.
It may not be damaged without good reason.
But what is a person's reputation?
What is this thing which may not be taken lightly?
Clearly it is not a possession which may be said to belong to him in the way, for example,
his clothes do.
In fact, a person's reputation does not belong to him at all.
A person's reputation is what other people think of him.
It consists of the thoughts which other people have.
A man does not own his reputation any more than he owns the thoughts of others, because
that is all his reputation consists of.
A man's reputation cannot be stolen from him any more than can the thoughts of other people
be stolen from him.
Whether his reputation was taken from him by fair means or foul, by truth or falsehood,
he did not own it in the first place, and hence should have no recourse to the law for
damages.
What then are we doing when we object to or prohibit libel?
We are prohibiting someone from affecting or trying to affect the thoughts of other
people.
But what does the right of free speech mean, if not that we are all free to try to affect
the thoughts of those around us?
So we must conclude that libel and slander are consistent with the rights of free speech.
Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the
The Laws Which Prohibit Libelous Speech
With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to
believe any publicized slur on someone's character.
It would not be printed if it were not true, reasons the gullible public.
If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived.
Agencies would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before
they could have any impact.
Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized
to meet the public's demand for accurate, scurrilous information.
The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers
if the latter were allowed free rein.
No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person's reputation.