WEBVTT

NOTE 7. The Slanderer or Libeler

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.800
CHAPTER VII THE SLANDERER AND LIBELER

2
00:00:05.800 --> 00:00:10.600
It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with

3
00:00:10.600 --> 00:00:13.160
whom one is in agreement.

4
00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:19.400
But the crucial test concerns controversial speech, statements which we may consider vicious

5
00:00:19.400 --> 00:00:25.680
and nasty and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty.

6
00:00:25.680 --> 00:00:31.080
Now there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel.

7
00:00:31.080 --> 00:00:37.160
We must therefore take particular care to defend the free speech rights of libelers,

8
00:00:37.160 --> 00:00:42.680
for if they can be protected, the rights of all others who do not give as much offense

9
00:00:42.680 --> 00:00:45.320
will certainly be more secure.

10
00:00:45.320 --> 00:00:51.200
But if the rights of free speech of libelers and slanderers are not protected, the rights

11
00:00:51.200 --> 00:00:54.880
of others will be less secure.

12
00:00:54.880 --> 00:00:59.440
The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the protection of the rights of

13
00:00:59.440 --> 00:01:02.880
libelers and slanderers is clear.

14
00:01:02.880 --> 00:01:05.800
Libel is ruinous to reputations.

15
00:01:05.800 --> 00:01:11.120
Harsh tales about lost jobs, friends, etc. abound.

16
00:01:11.120 --> 00:01:16.320
Far from being concerned with the free speech rights of the libeler and slanderer, civil

17
00:01:16.320 --> 00:01:22.640
libertarians have been concerned with protecting those who have had their reputations destroyed,

18
00:01:22.640 --> 00:01:23.640
. . .

19
00:01:52.640 --> 00:02:07.640
Of course, civil libertarians would deny that their objection to slander and libel commits them to the view described.

20
00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:15.640
They would admit that a person's reputation cannot always be protected, that sometimes it must be sacrificed.

21
00:02:15.640 --> 00:02:21.760
But this, they might say, does not exonerate the libeler, for a person's reputation is

22
00:02:21.760 --> 00:02:24.320
not something to be taken lightly.

23
00:02:24.320 --> 00:02:28.340
It may not be damaged without good reason.

24
00:02:28.340 --> 00:02:31.840
But what is a person's reputation?

25
00:02:31.840 --> 00:02:36.000
What is this thing which may not be taken lightly?

26
00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:41.480
Clearly it is not a possession which may be said to belong to him in the way, for example,

27
00:02:41.480 --> 00:02:43.220
his clothes do.

28
00:02:43.220 --> 00:02:48.100
In fact, a person's reputation does not belong to him at all.

29
00:02:48.100 --> 00:02:52.980
A person's reputation is what other people think of him.

30
00:02:52.980 --> 00:02:58.160
It consists of the thoughts which other people have.

31
00:02:58.160 --> 00:03:04.500
A man does not own his reputation any more than he owns the thoughts of others, because

32
00:03:04.500 --> 00:03:08.140
that is all his reputation consists of.

33
00:03:08.140 --> 00:03:14.660
A man's reputation cannot be stolen from him any more than can the thoughts of other people

34
00:03:14.660 --> 00:03:17.460
be stolen from him.

35
00:03:17.460 --> 00:03:24.460
Whether his reputation was taken from him by fair means or foul, by truth or falsehood,

36
00:03:24.460 --> 00:03:29.900
he did not own it in the first place, and hence should have no recourse to the law for

37
00:03:29.900 --> 00:03:31.940
damages.

38
00:03:31.940 --> 00:03:37.160
What then are we doing when we object to or prohibit libel?

39
00:03:37.160 --> 00:03:43.160
We are prohibiting someone from affecting or trying to affect the thoughts of other

40
00:03:43.160 --> 00:03:44.240
people.

41
00:03:44.240 --> 00:03:50.080
But what does the right of free speech mean, if not that we are all free to try to affect

42
00:03:50.080 --> 00:03:52.760
the thoughts of those around us?

43
00:03:52.760 --> 00:03:59.080
So we must conclude that libel and slander are consistent with the rights of free speech.

44
00:03:59.080 --> 00:04:06.360
Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the

45
00:04:06.360 --> 00:04:10.000
The Laws Which Prohibit Libelous Speech

46
00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:15.240
With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to

47
00:04:15.240 --> 00:04:20.460
believe any publicized slur on someone's character.

48
00:04:20.460 --> 00:04:25.720
It would not be printed if it were not true, reasons the gullible public.

49
00:04:25.720 --> 00:04:32.680
If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived.

50
00:04:32.680 --> 00:04:37.440
Agencies would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before

51
00:04:37.440 --> 00:04:40.560
they could have any impact.

52
00:04:40.560 --> 00:04:45.580
Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized

53
00:04:45.580 --> 00:04:50.560
to meet the public's demand for accurate, scurrilous information.

54
00:04:50.560 --> 00:04:56.920
The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers

55
00:04:56.920 --> 00:05:00.320
if the latter were allowed free rein.

56
00:05:00.320 --> 00:05:07.080
No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person's reputation.