Legal status of 'slander'

[GunnyFreedom]

Curious as to RPF-ers take on 'slander.'

Been in an arguement with someone who insinuated that no real libertarian thinks slander should be a crime and cited Rothbard. My take is that an attack is physical assault while slander is intellectual assault; and indeed is more of a violation of the nonaggression principle than mugging/battery.

I also found a citation where Ron Paul was willing to join a libel suit if the MIAC report was not withdrawn.

Turns out they loved Ron Paul enough to get a revolution tattoo, but now doesn't like him because he is not Rothbardian/Randish/Libertarian enough to support.

So I am curious as to the forums' take on the legal status of 'slander' and 'libel.'

Even if it potentially costs the victim millions of dollars, should malicious slander be covered under the freedom of speech?

[Njon]

It's not really slander/libel if it's true; I think that's what the famous John Peter Zenger case in colonial America was all about. But if someone is knowingly spreading false information about you that can cause you damage, then yes you should be able to sue, because they're lying in order to harm you (or if not trying to harm you, at least not caring if you get harmed by it).

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not really slander/libel if it's true; I think that's what the famous John Peter Zenger case in colonial America was all about. But if someone is knowingly spreading false information about you that can cause you damage, then yes you should be able to sue, because they're lying in order to harm you.

Agree; and as far as I know, current law defines libel/slander as necessarily untrue. Which of course means that anything one can prove is true, is necessarily not slander.

[nate895]

In order to prove slander, there is a huge hurdle. You to prove that the person charged displayed a reckless disregard for the truth and the report has harmed you in some way. Spreading lies about people to harm them (or simply abetting someone who is) is a form of aggression, but it is a passive form.

[Njon]

In order to prove slander, there is a huge hurdle. You to prove that the person charged displayed a reckless disregard for the truth and the report has harmed you in some way. Spreading lies about people to harm them (or simply abetting someone who is) is a form of aggression, but it is a passive form.


And when dealing with public figures it's even more difficult, because their public profile necessarily exposes them to increased criticism.

[GunnyFreedom]

In order to prove slander, there is a huge hurdle. You to prove that the person charged displayed a reckless disregard for the truth and the report has harmed you in some way. Spreading lies about people to harm them (or simply abetting someone who is) is a form of aggression, but it is a passive form.

Proving slander OUGHT to be a pretty hard hurdle, I think. I took objection to the idea that a real Libertarian does not recognize slander as a chargeable offense at all.

IMHO genuine slander is more harmful than a bullet to the head. Therefore I find the idea that slander should never be chargeable under any circumstance, well, horrifying. Just like physical assault, intellectual assault is one of the very things that we band together as a society to stop. According to what I believe anyway.

I think mostly I was offended at being compared to the McBush Obamanation because I believe that slander really ought to be a crime.

[Objectivist]

It's not really slander/libel if it's true; I think that's what the famous John Peter Zenger case in colonial America was all about. But if someone is knowingly spreading false information about you that can cause you damage, then yes you should be able to sue, because they're lying in order to harm you (or if not trying to harm you, at least not caring if you get harmed by it).

Yep!

[Brian4Liberty]

Curious as to RPF-ers take on 'slander.'

Been in an arguement with someone who insinuated that no real libertarian thinks slander should be a crime and cited Rothbard.

Does this person believe in contracts? Slander interferes with a person's current and future contracts (i.e. you could lose or not get a contract). Something that might be related:


Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. The hardcore instance of this tort occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party, in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.

Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.

An early, perhaps the earliest, instance of recognition of this tort occurred in Garret v. Taylor, 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K.B. 1620). In that case, the defendant drove customers away from the plaintiff’s quarry by threatening them with mayhem and also threatening to “vex [them] with suits.” The King's Bench court said that “the defendant threatened violence to the extent of committing an assault upon ... customers of the plaintiff ... whereupon ‘they all desisted from buying.’’ The court therefore upheld a judgment for the plaintiff.

In a similar case, Tarleton v. McGawley, 170 Eng. Rep. 153 (K.B. 1793), the defendant shot from its ship Othello off the coast of Africa upon natives while “contriving and maliciously intending to hinder and deter the natives from trading with” plaintiff’s rival trading ship Bannister. This action caused the natives (plaintiff’s prospective customers) to flee the scene, depriving the plaintiff of their potential business. The King's Bench court held the conduct actionable. The defendant claimed, by way of justification, that the local native ruler had given it an exclusive franchise to trade with his subjects, but the court rejected this defense.

The tort was described in the case of Keeble v. Hickeringill, (1707) 103 Eng. Rep. 1127, styled as a "trespass on the case". In that case, the defendant had used a shotgun to drive ducks away from a pond that the plaintiff had built for the purpose of capturing ducks. Thus, unlike the foregoing cases, here the actionable conduct was not directly driving the prospective customers away, but rather eliminating the subject matter of the prospective business. Although the ducks had not yet been captured, the Justice Holt wrote for the court that "where a violent or malicious act is done to a man's occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, there an action lies in all cases." The court noted that the defendant would have the right to draw away ducks to a pond of his own, raising as a comparison a 1410 case in which the court deemed that no cause of action would lie where a schoolmaster opened a new school that drew students away from an old school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Intentional interference with contractual relations is a common law tort that applies to an activity or activities that causes a damage to contractual relations between parties. It may include acts that prevent parties from contracting or it may cause the parties who have already entered into a contract to fail to perform or otherwise complete their contractual relations.

An example may be statements by an individual set to prevent someone from entering into a contract. Of course not all such statements may be interference with a contract as in an open market individuals can compete for contracts and can attempt to properly influence individuals so that they may decide between one contractor and another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_interference_with_contractual_relation s