Does It Make Sense To Have Libel Be A Criminal Offense?
from the watch-out-what-state-you're-in dept
For the most part, libel is a civil issue between the person who made the libelous statements and the person harmed by those statements. However, there are some states that do have criminal libel laws on the books -- though they're rarely enforced. The state of Colorado, however, apparently is willing to use the law, and the law itself seems fairly broad. It was written over a century ago and says that "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule" counts as libel. Libel should be about making materially false statements about someone. If you're exposing the real natural defects of someone, it's difficult to see how that should be considered libel.Either way, that law is being tested once again, as a man is being charged with criminal libel for posting disparaging messages about his ex-girlfriend (and mother of his child) and her lawyer on Craigslist. The guy says he was only venting -- but it certainly does sound like he was libelous in what he posted. The question, though, remains whether it makes sense for the lawsuit to be criminal, or a civil issue to be taken up directly between the libeled parties and the guy who posted the remarks. Making it a criminal charge seems like a waste of gov't and taxpayer resources concerning a dispute between parties who should be able to settle things via a civil lawsuit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: colorado, criminal libel, libel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The US Constitution, 1st amendment clearly states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Criminal Offense for libel sounds like it falls under the 1st amendment "freedom of speech" clause. (and BTW, it is NOT "free speech").
Oddly enough, the US Constitution 1st amendment is also used to force religious observance out of the public space; whether the public space is owned by the government or not.
also, you're a doody head! Libel that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US Constitution, 1st amendment clearly states that
This is a state law. It would be up to the parties injured by this law to elevate the case to the supreme court to have the law ruled as unconstitutional.
For the most part, you're right tho... The law should not stop you from saying what you think. However, that's why libel and slander are usually (as Mike points out) a civil issue. The law can't stop you from lying about me to hurt my character, but I can sue you if those lies cause damage. Which is Mike's point. It's not the government's place to enforce civil morality (don't tell lies)... it's our place to do so amongst ourselves. The law should only serve to give us the structured forum to settle these injuries peacefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The US Constitution, 1st amendment clearly states that
Unless a higher court rules that the law *is* constitutional first, the lowest court in the smallest town can rule that it is unconstitutional. Such a ruling would not create a binding precedent on other jurisdictions, so in this case the charges could be dismissed, and somebody else could still be convicted of similar charges in a neighboring jurisdiction. A ruling that requires the entire state to recognize the law as unconstitutional would have to come from a court with jurisdiction over the entire state. That could be a state court, or a federal court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The US Constitution, 1st amendment clearly states that
Doesn't matter. The 14th Amendment incorporates the states into the federa constitutional umbrella regarding violations of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore it's just as illegal for the state government to violate the 1st Amendment as it is for the federal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
Or, they could settle it without a lawsuit at all. What a novel idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, as with any law, the law in question here is simply an expression of the values of the community that enacted the law. I can see how a community might find it useful to put the resources of the state behind the prevention of an individual's intentional harmful conduct.
Although odd to those of us in jurisdictions that don't criminalize libel, I imagine it's not much different that how non-community property state citizens feel about the eight community property states in the US.
To Ajax: the freedom of speech granted under the First Amendment is not unfettered and is subject to reasonable restriction. Consider, for example, that yelling "fire" in a movie theater is rightfully unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Restraint
> First Amendment is not unfettered and is
> subject to reasonable restriction.
There's nothing reasonable about this Colorado law's restrictions. In fact, it flies in the face of 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that truth is the ultimate defense to a libel charge and that any law to the contrary violates the 1st Amendment. Well, here we have Colorado saying that it doesn't matter if what you say is true if it blackens the memory of a dead person or it exposes someone's nature defects. That alone would cause this law to fail a 1st Amendment challenge. The only reason it hasn't happened to date is that no one has bothered to pursue a case against it.
> Consider, for example, that yelling "fire" in a
> movie theater is rightfully unlawful.
No, it's not unlawful to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If there's really a fire, it's perfectly appropriate to warn the patrons of it.
The "clear and present danger test" (to which you are referring with your theater comment) only says that the government may place prior restraint on speech when there is a clear and present danger of imminent death or serious bodily injury as a result. That's hardly the case with a person who publishes an article about someone who is long dead that casts them in an unflattering light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth is a defense to libel.
So whatever statements that are madde have have to be false. You cannot say that I committed libel is I say that you are short if you are in fact short.
In addition, the analysis has to be tempered to take in cosnideration whether the person is a public or private figure. If it is a private figure, such as appears to be the case here, there are a lot more protections in place.
I guess in some ways, simplistic statements that do not even attempt to probe whether the underlying issues in the matter are essential to this site since it guarantees debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth
> that it is written by nonlawyer with little
> understanding of the law. Truth is a defense
> to libel.
Not according to this Colorado law. That's what makes it unconstitutional.
Oh, and I am a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Colorado's libel statute, dating to the 19th century, allows criminal prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule."
if someone is a scalewag, and is called such, it still will "blacken his name" (which is a fairly racist concept if you think about it). So i do not think the truth is a defense here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the girlfriend - who knows. For the lawyer; I'm not sure there's much that really can be done to 'damage' the reputation of a lawyer, they do that more efficiently than anyone else could themselves. -- Hey, I'm just speaking the truth.. I didn't give lawyers a bad rep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal?
Also, there are some places where libel does not necessarily have to be false - just intentionally malicious. Even true words, when used to hurt another person, can be criminal. While civil actions might enable you to hit someone in the pocketbook, that's often not what it takes to get an abuser to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal?
Care to elaborate ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal?
Just because a child was the product of an unplanned conception doesn't give the parents the right to scream at that child daily (or ever), "I never wanted you, I wish you never came into my life!" It might be true, but very likely criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal?
> an unplanned conception doesn't give the
> parents the right to scream at that child
> daily (or ever), "I never wanted you, I wish
> you never came into my life!" It might be
> true, but very likely criminal.
In that case, it's the constant screaming at the child that's abusive, not the actual words themselves. Screaming *anything* at a child all day is child abuse. No 1st Amendment issues there at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, the act of homicide (criminal) is likewise subject to a possible cause of action based upon wrongful death (civil). Mr. OJ readily comes to mind as one of the most extreme examples. We know he was found not guilty in the criminal case, but was found liable under the civil case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sticks n stones
How did the offended party become aware of said post ?
This whole story sounds almost laughable. It would be nice if people could act like adults ... oh well.
And yes, the law should be removed as it does not make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sticks n stones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sticks n stones
I was not aware that one needed to be a lawyer in order to have an opinion about the law. When did this happen ?
As you have demonstrated, one does not need command of the english language in order to post on a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sticks n stones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sticks n stones
Sorry to have scared you, but it was funny.
Where do they get people to serve on a jury ? Should they only select those that have studied law or have experience in the field ? Or should people not have any opinion about any law in order to serve on a jury ?
Please help me, I'm so confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We ain't in Colorado anymore Dorothy
"expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule"
So if I said JimBob is a Puppy Killer (lets assume JimBob is a vet, and putting 'strays' down is part of his job), what I have said is factually true. However based on the Colorado law, I have now exposed JimBob to possible public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and I could therefore be charged with Criminal Libel, even though I have spoken the truth.
IANL, so just my .02 (.0002 adjusted for current economy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We ain't in Colorado anymore Dorothy
> alive, and thereby to expose him to public
> hatred, contempt or ridicule"
> So if I said JimBob is a Puppy Killer (lets assume
> JimBob is a vet, and putting 'strays' down is
> part of his job), what I have said is factually
> true. However based on the Colorado law, I have
> now exposed JimBob to possible public hatred,
> contempt, and ridicule, and I could therefore
> be charged with Criminal Libel, even though I
> have spoken the truth.
Well, not really, since being a vet and killing puppies isn't a natural defect.
A more accurate example would be if you were Jim Bob's wife and during an acrimonious divorce you revealed that Jim Bob hasn't been able to get it up for three years. That's a natural defect that would expose him to ridicule, and according to this Colorado law, it would be criminal act to reveal it, even though it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else noticed this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else noticed this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone else noticed this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course libel is criminal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course libel is criminal!
> a massive audience
On the other hand, why should someone be arrested for saying something that's true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: #6
Libel should be limited to civil action, period.
A situation (such as the above 'puppy killer' example) where someone uses a true statement to cause another person harm should be treated as harassment, not libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
right target at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: #23
No one here is advocating the right to say anything about anyone, anywhere, without repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel a criminal offense
Spreading defamatory comment can be as vicious a crime as savaging a person with a carving knife and leaving him for dead on the ground. This form of abuse is often hidden from view, but that does not take away from its perniciousness. Consequently, it should most definitely be part of the criminal code of law.
If there were no criminal protection against assault, battery and murder with a weapon, there would still be public outcry and action against it. On the other hand, murderers who use words are well aware that they may do so in total security and with no fear of any reprisal whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]