President
Donald Trump said, “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel
laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about
someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts.” The
president was responding to statements made in Michael Wolff’s new book, “Fire
and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”
Our
nation does not need stronger laws against libel. To the contrary, libel and
slander laws should be repealed. Let’s say exactly what libel and slander are.
The legal profession defines libel as a published false statement that is
damaging to a person’s reputation. Slander is making a false spoken statement
that is damaging to a person’s reputation.
There’s
a question about reputation that never crosses even the sharpest legal minds.
Does one’s reputation belong to him? In other words, if one’s reputation is
what others think about him, whose property are other people’s thoughts? The
thoughts I have in my mind about others, and hence their reputations, belong to
me.
One
major benefit from decriminalizing libel and slander would be that it would
reduce the value of gossip. It would reduce the value of false statements made
by others. Here’s a Gallup Poll survey question: “In general, how much trust
and confidence do you have in the mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio
— when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly — a great
deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?” In 1976, 72 percent of
Americans trusted the media, and today the percentage has fallen to 32. The
mainstream media are so biased and dishonest that more and more Americans are
using alternative news sources, which have become increasingly available
electronically.
Race & Economics: How ...Walter
E. WilliamsBest Price: $7.48Buy New $12.46(as
of 06:55 EST - Details)
While
we’re talking about bad laws dealing with libel and slander, let’s raise some
questions about other laws involving speech — namely, blackmail laws. The legal
profession defines blackmail as occurring when someone demands money from a
person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information. I
believe that people should not be prosecuted for blackmail. Let’s examine it
with the following scenario. It’s 5 o’clock in the morning. You see me leaving
a motel with a sweet young thing who’s obviously not Mrs. Williams. You say to
me, “Professor Williams, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees
me the right to broadcast to the entire world your conduct that I observed.” I
believe that most would agree that you have that right. You then proposition
me, “If you pay me $10,000, I will not exercise my right to tell the world
about your behavior.”
Now the ball is in my court.
I have a right to turn down your proposition and let you tell the world about
my infidelity and live with the consequences of that decision. Or I can pay you
the $10,000 for your silence and live with the consequences of that decision.
In other words, blackmail fits into the category of peaceable, noncoercive
voluntary exchange, just like most other transactions. If I’m seen voluntarily
giving up $10,000, the only conclusion a third party could reach is that I must
have viewed myself as being better off as a result. That’s just like an
instance when you see me voluntarily give up money for some other good or
service — be it food, clothing, housing or transportation. You come to the same
conclusion.
What
constitutes a crime can be divided into two classes — mala in se and mala
prohibita. Homicide and robbery are inherently wrong (mala in se). They involve
the initiation of force against another. By contrast, blackmail (mala
prohibita) offenses are considered criminal not because they violate the
property or person of another but because society seeks to regulate such
behavior. By the way, married people would tend to find blackmail in their
interest. Extra eyes on their spouse’s behavior, in pursuit of money, would
help to ensure greater marital fidelity.
Those who would like to dig
deeper into blackmail can go here.
Walter
E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George
Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about
Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.
Copyright © 2018 Creators.com
Previous
article by Walter E. Williams: The Electoral College Is Undemocratic
