From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 20:23:09 MST
John Clark writes
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au> Wrote:
>
> > Free speech can sometimes be cheap speech.
>
> It usually is, but so what? If I say bad things about you it will only be
> really damaging to you if my reputation is good. If I have a history of
> making similar charges that turned out to be untrue anything I say will just
> be shrugged off. I think a free market of ideas should determine what is
> true and what is not, the idea of some an official body making such a decree
> gives me the creeps.
While I agree, I think that it would be most enlightening to know
more about the history of libel and slander laws. I can presently
think of only two possibilities.
(1) Certain powerful individuals were embarrassed by what their
political opponents were able to reveal about them, and wanted
them shut up permanently. So these individuals got behind laws
to forcibly suppress denunciations against them.
(2) The monopoly of information---i.e. newspapers---was so severe
that it was thought by many prudent legislators that such power
needed restraint. Otherwise, at certain key moments those newspapers
had the power to critically damage a candidate.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST