Walter Block to sue New York Times???

[Occam's Banana]

See these threads for context:
- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442351-Sickening-Hit-Piece-on-Rand-Paul-Published-in-NY-Times
- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442485-We-Win-the-NY-Times-Prize
(Also, see this thread for Tom Woods' thoughts: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442842-Tom-Woods-The-Anti-Truth-NYT-amp-How-to-Deal-With-It)

Walter Block is considering suing the New York Times over remarks made in the NYT's recent "hit piece" on Rand Paul.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/sue-new-york-times-for-libel/

Sue New York Times for libel?!?!

Dear Folks: I am contemplating suing the New York Times for libel. For details, go here:

Block, Walter. 2014. “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/).” January 30.

Several people have responded to this article of mine on LewRockwell.com, and have pledged several hundreds of dollars between them. But, I have just learned, much to my consternation, that to launch such a lawsuit would costs LOTS of money. So, I’m looking for a (libertarian) lawyer who would do this pro bono. Any volunteers out there? If so, please get in touch with me at wblock@loyno.edu. I’m not in this for the money. I intend to donate any money I get from this to the Mises Institute. I’m willing to donate all the time it would take to do this, and maybe a little bit of my own money, but I don’t have too much for this purpose. I know that the ACLU helped out Hans Hoppe when he had his difficulties regarding “time preference.” So I might try them. Are there any other such organizations that might take on a case like mine? I have also been told that I don’t have a good case, since I did indeed use the exact words the NY Times quoted me as saying. But, I contend, this newspaper took those words completely out of context. I don’t much care if some people think I have a good legal case or not. I very much want to sue them. I would appreciate any help anyone could give me on this.

FTA (emphasis added): http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/

One last word. I allege that it is libelous to claim I maintain that (real world) slavery wasn’t really so bad. Shall I sue Mr. Tanenhaus and his employer? The latter certainly has deep pockets. I am rather ambivalent about this. On the one hand, libel is not a per se violation of the NAP. Under libertarian law, Mr. Tanenhaus and the New York Times have a legal right to besmirch my good name with allegations of this sort. Yes, they have attempted to ruin my reputation. Probably, they have succeeded, at least with a goodly number of people. But, I do not own my own reputation. Rather, it consists of the thoughts of other people, and I cannot own those. For more on this, see my book Defending I. On the other hand, the NAP only requires that libertarians refrain from using violence (lawsuits ultimately constitute the use of invasive force) against innocent people. The New York Times hardly fits this bill. Rather, that organization is a major mouthpiece for the state. As Lew Rockwell pithily put it, and as reported in this very article, they are “part of the regime.” Therefore, they would not be off bounds for a libel suit launched by a libertarian.

Do you agree with Block's justification for considering legal action against the New York Times?
Or do you think he is being hypocritical? Do you think that Block should sue the New York Times?
Vote in the poll above &/or elaborate below ...

[Christian Liberty]

If we were talking about a cop or a soldier or something like that (even a former one), I'd see his point.

But in this case, the NYT, in simply cheerleading for the State, is not technically guilty in my mind.

Evil, yes. But not guilty.

So I think Block is wrong. I also think that he's hurting liberty by doing it, as a pragmatic matter.

Urging Block to reconsider.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

If we were talking about a cop or a soldier or something like that (even a former one), I'd see his point.

But in this case, the NYT, in simply cheerleading for the State, is not technically guilty in my mind.

Evil, yes. But not guilty.

So I think Block is wrong. I also think that he's hurting liberty by doing it, as a pragmatic matter.

Urging Block to reconsider.

They are not merely cheerleading. It is well documented that through programs such as Mockingbird, the NYT is a wholly owned subidiary of the government.

But even if they were merely cheerleading, I don't think suing them for libel would be any more hypocritical or immoral or bad strategy than voting or driving on the roads or running for President.


Block should go through with this and then run for the Republican party presidential nomination.

Just think what would have happened if Ron Paul had snuck off on his bicycle away from his handlers and conducted his entire campaign out in front of the court houses of America handing out FIJA leaflets teaching potential jurors and all who would listen about the racist drug laws, and the racist Fugitive slave laws that Lincoln and the Republicans tried to enforce, and how slavery was only sustainable with government enforcement.

Maybe Ron will join Walter on the courthouse steps during Walter's 2016 run. They can spend hours breaking down the slavery and race issues. They can spend days analyzing all this from a libertarian/voluntarist perspective. If Walter runs and asks Ron to join him on the courthouse steps, how can Ron say no?

[LibertyEagle]

Block should go through with this and then run for the Republican party presidential nomination.



Oh puhleese. Don't be ridiculous. Just his diatribe about evicting babies from the womb would knock him out of contention.

He needs to be more careful with his rhetoric.

[angelatc]

Unless he can prove damages there is nothing to win.

[Red Green]

I don't see this as being hypocritical or wrong. If someone says something in the affirmative about a person, especially when it is a commercial affair, they should have to stick to the truth.

I know some people would say that people don't own their reputation, but an assault on someone's reputation can be as damaging as an assault on their person. If you make money off the reputation you have built, as many professionals do, what is the difference between assaulting that reputation with scurrilous lies than say, walking up to a professional dancer and deliberately breaking their leg? The result is still a diminished ability to earn, which the perpetrator should pay for.

[Red Green]

Unless he can prove damages there is nothing to win.

Future damages are the issue here. He could at the very least get his legal bills paid for and force a retraction.

[tod evans]

Acknowledging their courts only gives them creedence.

Kinda like asking the police to police the police....

[Red Green]

Acknowledging their courts only gives them creedence.

Kinda like asking the police to police the police....

The only difference is that with a civil court trial like this is you have two private parties at odds vs the state going after a mundane. The state, so to speak, doesn't have a dog in this fight, at least not directly. One could say that the NYT is a quasi-state mouthpiece for the state though....

[VoluntaryAmerican]

They are not merely cheerleading. It is well documented that through programs such as Mockingbird, the NYT is a wholly owned subidiary of the government.

I think cheerleading is an appropriate term for what they do. They are not owned by the government, statements like that are just pure crap.

[mczerone]

Tough call.

While NYT might be a NAP violator generally, a suit for libel isn't a direct indictment for those violations. So I'd generally say that this form for retaliatory force wouldn't be appropriate. It's like knowing a guy stole your TV, and using that as an excuse to punch him in the face at a bar for saying you have a small penis in front of a date. It's unrelated to their supposed crime, and doesn't serve as retribution, restoration, or deterrence.

OTOH, I'd make the case that by putting themselves out there as a source of "truth" and "news" they've been committed to a certain standard of care for the information that they publish. Libel charges brought by the person against whom false or reckless statements were made could conceivably be valid in a system of anarchic law. It's not per se Block's reputation that's been aggressed against, but the "3rd party beneficiaries" that the NYT has taken advantage of by pretending that they publish facts, when they are either purposefully or recklessly publishing mis-truths.

Any Joe on the street could say these things about Walter without libel charges being applicable against him - but the NYT has not only taken state privilege, but has used it's position of repute to defraud those who take their word that they will publish true facts.

So a case seeking damages could be justified in a Kaldor-Hicks theory of "as long as payment is made to someone, the true victims benefit", though I don't necessarily agree with this economic notion. What might be more appropriate would be an injunction forcing the NYT to publish, everyday for a year, on an above-the-fold headline, that they are no more trust worthy than the Weekly World News.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

He needs to be more careful with his rhetoric.

Exactly.

Rhetoric is the science of the use of language, techniques, devices, and tricks if necessary to persuade others to believe in one's ideas.

I once had a Humanities professor who used to lie to us over and over again in his classes and speeches in order to pound that point into our heads. He was so good at it that we would always fall for it. Often at the end of the class as we were about to leave he would say something like, "Oh yeah, remember that story I told you earlier in the class about how I was once recruited by President Ford's speech writers to be a consultant on some of Ford's speeches? That was a lie I made up to set you up to make you think I was a big shot traveling in elite circles in order to make you be more open to my argument."

The anti-libertarian right has been lying and equating libertarianism to racism since at least the time of Buckley.

The left and the beltway libertarians have learned their rhetorical lessons well from CIA Officer Buckley. They have been fabulously rhetorically successful at equating libertarianism with racism for many decades.

So what sort of rhetorical techniques have we seen libertarians use to successfully refute these lies?

I saw a recent Tom Woods video that explained how one should only speak in sentences that stand on their own in any context. That might be a good idea especially in interviews with regime mouthpieces such as NYT reporters.

But libertarianism by definition is a set of 1, 2, and 3 step logical reasoning chains. Its rhetoricians such as Block and Ron Paul must explain to their audiences the exciting news of how not only are libertarian principles in opposition to 19th century enslavement of blacks, BUT libertarianism for the same reasons opposes 21st century government enslavement of you and me.

But equating 19th century enslavement to today shuts down the brains of seemingly everybody, just like equating the cops to the gestapo.

So where have we ever seen a rhetorical breakthrough that actually seemed to win lots and lots of people to the libertarian idea that today right now all of us--black and white--are living on a government plantation and that the cops are worse than the gestapo?

Let me see I'm going through my list of successful libertarian movements...let's see...There was Barry Goldwater ...but oh yeah, he wanted to nuke the commies and keep shoveling money to the MIC...let's see...There was Ronald Reagan...but, oh yeah, same thing...let's see...There was the 1994 Republican Revolution...but, oh yeah, same thing. None of those salesmen were selling libertarianism.

If you narrow it down to actual libertarianism, then there's only been one libertarian sales job in the last 50 years that has managed to gain any rhetorical success at all and it was quite remarkable.

But it was successful ONLY because of this miraculous chain of events:

1. Ron Paul was almost completely incapable of hiding his pure libertarianism. He might only have gotten 1 minute in a network televised 90 minute debate. But in that 1 minute the contrast between his unvarnished libertarian truth and goodness and the other 89 minutes of lies and evilness was the rhetorical device that broke through to a certain audience. Libertarians had never been revealed to such a large audience in such a way before.

A good example is how Ron couldn't help himself from giving the South Carolina Christians the hard medicine. They booed loudly and it was insulting to much of the live audience and a rhetorical sin according to his handlers who were more cognitively dissonant to Ron's ideas than much of the electorate. But it was rhetorical gold. Libertarianism had never seen anything succeed on such a large scale like that.

2. There was a big enough audience out there who could be penetrated by Ron's rhetoric and it was an extremely high quality audience. 1 Ron Paul caucus vote was worth 100 of the others.

The best example of this was when CNN broadcasted Sheldon Adelson's private Nevada caucus as 15 random delegates in a row gave killer anti-militarism speeches that probably made Ron's handlers squirm. CNN and Wolf or whoever it was were so stunned they were speechless and just let the random delegates go off one after the other. I think they were hoping a pro-Empire delegate would be the next to be randomly chosen to speak. But, they just kept picking Love-o-lutionaries one after the other. Network television has NEVER allowed that kind of pure libertarian rhetoric on the air for that long before and never intends to again I can assure you. Just think of how many high quality people of like mind saw that and were sold on doing something other than what they would have done otherwise.

3. A larger but lesser "quality" audience--libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberals who were sympathetic to but not fully convinced by Ron's 1, 2, and 3 step libertarian logical reasoning chains--were still sold enough on Ron's ideas to vote for him and gain a clearer understanding of and adopt more libertarian ideas for themselves.

I can think of several people in my circle of friends and family who were like that. They've been listening to me for years and agreeing with a lot but not all of it. Hearing it from Ron convinced them that there was something about it much more honest and true than the alternatives even if they were still scared of Muslims and/or afraid the hungry might not get fed.

***

So, yes Walter Block needs to work on his rhetorical skills just like the rest of us. This lawsuit could be a good kickoff to a properly run presidential campaign for that purpose.

Unfortunately, they will NEVER again allow another pure libertarian such as Ron Paul in a network presidential debate and it was Ron's sneaking into that venue and the amazing spectacle of truth being spoken where it literally had never been spoken before that really kicked off the miraculous chain of events that resulted in such an unprecedented level of libertarian rhetorical success.

But Walter should do it anyway--especially if Ron would come out and help him inform jurors at the court houses and sit on the marathon town hall meetings and press conferences where Walter would be holding court breaking down the principles of freedom in detail and discussing his plan to dismantle the state.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Um...if my memory serves me correctly didn't Walter come out as anti-libel laws in Defending the Undefendable? I thought his position is that reputation is unownable or more specific, not tangible.

[Barrex]

Unless he can prove damages there is nothing to win.

Ha???

[emazur]

If Walter Block is looking for a libertarian lawyer, this is the first guy that popped into my mind (he's an excellent speaker by the way - I'm sure it won't take much effort to find something good of his on youtube):
http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/PROJ/REVOLUTION/0-WhoIsBobSchulz.htm

In 1979, Schulz filed his first lawsuit against the government to stop the local public works project. He presented evidence the local officials had violated the law. He won.

Following that lawsuit, Schulz went on to fight over 100 legal battles against various agencies and officials in the state of New York, including successful lawsuits against the Governor involving misuse of public funds, after which suffering political defeat.

In 1994, Schulz ran for libertarian candidate for governor. In 1988, Schulz set down his business affairs and took on the full-time role as a "Freedom Keeper." He has never looked back.

After forming the WTP Foundation and WTP Congress in 1997, Schulz slowly moved onto issues of national significance bringing lawsuits to halt the Wall Street sponsored bailout of the failed Mexican Peso and to challenge the President's constitutional authority to bomb Serbia without a Congressional Declaration of War.

By 2000 WTP and Schulz were knee-deep in exposing the fraud of the federal Income Tax system. By 2002, WTP had authored several additional Petitions for Redress asserting gross violations of the Constitution resulting from the USA Patriot Act, the privately owned Federal Reserve, and the (undeclared) Iraq war. Additional Petitions regarding the NAU, Illegal Immigration/Open Borders, and the infringement of the Second Amendment were also created.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh puhleese. Don't be ridiculous. Just his diatribe about evicting babies from the womb would knock him out of contention.

He needs to be more careful with his rhetoric.

Not saying I agree with Walter on this issue (I don't) but not everything is about being liked. I think Walter was wrong there because he was wrong, not because it was "offensive" or whatever.

At any rate, I'd gladly vote for Block.

[The Free Hornet]

Banana logic has failed me!

I don't think he is being hypocritical, but I don't know what he should do!!! :confused:

FWIW, you shouldn't have to agree with libel law to sue under it just as you shouldn't have to agree with SS to collect benefits. Or to sue your neighbors for making too much noise. Does it matter if it is a zoning versus an HOA violation? There is a limit to this logic but I wouldn't start with suing for Uncle Sam's funny money.

So you now got one vote for "Don't care / No opinion".

[Christian Liberty]

Or to sue your neighbors for making too much noise.

Yeah, that's not OK.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't see this as being hypocritical or wrong. If someone says something in the affirmative about a person, especially when it is a commercial affair, they should have to stick to the truth.

I know some people would say that people don't own their reputation, [...]

The question is NOT whether "some people" would say so. The question is whether Walter Block himself would say so. And he very clearly does say so.

Hence, the question of whether Block is being a hypocrite. (It doesn't matter whether you agree with Block's position on libel or reputation.)

What matters is whether Block - if he pursues a suit for libel against the NYT - is behaving consistently with his own stated principles.

[Occam's Banana]

Um...if my memory serves me correctly didn't Walter come out as anti-libel laws in Defending the Undefendable? I thought his position is that reputation is unownable or more specific, not tangible.

Yes. He did and it is. He even reiterated that very position in the second quote by him in the OP (emphasis added):

[L]ibel is not a per se violation of the NAP. Under libertarian law, Mr. Tanenhaus and the New York Times have a legal right to besmirch my good name with allegations of this sort. Yes, they have attempted to ruin my reputation. Probably, they have succeeded, at least with a goodly number of people. But, I do not own my own reputation. Rather, it consists of the thoughts of other people, and I cannot own those. For more on this, see my book [Defending the Undefendables].

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think he is being hypocritical, but I don't know what he should do!!! :confused:

FWIW, you shouldn't have to agree with libel law to sue under it just as you shouldn't have to agree with SS to collect benefits. Or to sue your neighbors for making too much noise. Does it matter if it is a zoning versus an HOA violation? There is a limit to this logic but I wouldn't start with suing for Uncle Sam's funny money.

This is not a matter of "getting back what was taken from you" or "trying to hasten the demise of the system" (ala claiming Social Security benefits). It is also not a case of seeking redress for some kind of property rights violation (ala noisy neighbors). Block has very clearly stated a number of times that one does NOT have any "property rights" in one's own reputation. Period. By his own logic, he has NO basis for any such action against the Times.

And as pointed out by mczerone earlier, note that in the "on the other hand" part of the second quote by Block in the OP, Block tries to justify a libel suit on the basis that the New York Times is a "bad actor" in other respects having nothing to do with libel per se. That just does not fly in my book.

I don't think Block should go through with this - and if he does, I think he will be a hypocrite. I will be very disappointed in him if that happens.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is not a matter of "getting back what was taken from you" or "trying to hasten the demise of the system" (ala claiming Social Security benefits). It is also not a case of seeking redress for some kind of property rights violation (ala noisy neighbors). Block has very clearly stated a number of times that one does NOT have any "property rights" in one's own reputation. Period. By his own logic, he has NO basis for any such action against the Times.

And as pointed out by mczerone earlier, note that in the "on the other hand" part of the second quote by Block in the OP, Block tries to justify a libel suit on the basis that the New York Times is a "bad actor" in other respects having nothing to do with libel per se. That just does not fly in my book.

I don't think Block should go through with this - and if he does, I think he will be a hypocrite. I will be very disappointed in him if that happens.

+1 plz don't give us teh disappoint, Walter! No lawsuit!

[Red Green]

The question is NOT whether "some people" would say so. The question is whether Walter Block himself would say so. And he very clearly does say so.

Hence, the question of whether Block is being a hypocrite. (It doesn't matter whether you agree with Block's position on libel or reputation.)

What matters is whether Block - if he pursues a suit for libel against the NYT - is behaving consistently with his own stated principles.

If Block has said that libel is not an aggression, then yes he is being hypocritical. I admit that I honestly am ignorant of the fellow's body of work. And, I am not sure this is even libel. He admitted to using the analogy, so in a way he needs to clean up his rhetoric as was mentioned in a previous post.

[idiom]

Libertarians have a burning desire to defend slavery while trying to gain ground in Politics.

Its like they imagine that 50% of people will vote for the most offensive rhetoric they hear.

For Block, Slavery follows from the logic of being able to Imprison or punish people. If you can do wither of those, then your rights to your own person are not inalienable.

This is a point lost on most NAP advocates, who like prison, or physical punishment, but don't like slavery.

[Christian Liberty]

The form of slavery that Block defends is voluntary slavery, ie. choosing to sell yourself. I disagree with him on this point, but there's an obvious difference between this and coercive slavery such as that which took place in the US pre-1865. At any rate, Walter should NOT sue here. He'd be hypocritical if he did. Maybe we should mass email him and tell him not to do it? I think this could really hurt the movement if we were known for inconsistencies like this.

[TheGrinch]

Putting hypocrisy aside (and that he'd probably be wiser to just let this go rather than letting the media control the narrative even more), he has absolutely no case whatsoever for libel. He even admits that the quotes were accurate.

To prove libel, you need to show:

1) that what they said was not only false, but knowingly false. He can't even satisfy the condition of falsity. Spin is not libel. That is why it is frequently used, because it removes context to use that person's words against them. Scummy, yes in many cases, but taking a quote out of context isn't even close to libel or slander.

2) malicious intent - an even bigger standard when it comes to public figures, is why they virtually never have a case. It is virtually improvable in most cases.

[Occam's Banana]

If Block has said that libel is not an aggression, then yes he is being hypocritical. I admit that I honestly am ignorant of the fellow's body of work.

He has indeed said so. (In the second quote in the OP, he said, "libel is not a per se violation of the NAP.")

He famously "defended" libel, blackmail, etc. in his book Defending the Undefendables.


And, I am not sure this is even libel. He admitted to using the analogy, so in a way he needs to clean up his rhetoric as was mentioned in a previous post.

I don't think it is libel, either (see TheGrinch's post above).

That's why I don't think he should waste any time or resources trying to sue (even if he wouldn't be hypocritical for doing so).

[Contumacious]

Or do you think he is being hypocritical? Do you think that Block should sue the New York Times?
Vote in the poll above &/or elaborate below ...

The NYT is a bullshit fishwrapper. Their editors strive to become another Pravda.

But its private property and should be allowed to print any garbage they choose.

.