3 ms·

Here's the full text of the letter between Jefferson and Norvell. Very interesting. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-je

Here's the full text of the letter between Jefferson and Norvell. Very interesting. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl179.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... I've often wondered if the protections afforded to the press in the first amendment of the US Constitution could have benefited from greater clarity. What I mean by this is that I sincerely doubt the authors intended to protect lies, deceit and libel. It would make no sense whatsoever to create a law that effectively says "You can lie cheat and steal all you want and this shall be protected by the highest law in the land". Here's the text from the first amendment: "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." Some might say: Well, libel is addressable through other legislation. Well, yes and no. It just so happens I was involved in a libel case many decades ago. In this case a newsletter (this was before internet days) had given a competitor a monthly column to author. This competitor decided to dedicate one column to attack our company and print a bunch of outright lies about our products. Things like "they don't test", "they ship their customers untested products", etc. I mean, this guy knew nothing about us and yet he focused an entire page to defaming me and my company. A meeting with my attorney resulted in letters to the publication's entire board as well as the author/competitor. The only way I can characterize the reaction from the other side was "they shit in their pants". I came to learn a libel lawsuit is a very serious and potentially financially crippling event for someone without the means. Large companies can manage them but individuals can lose their home, savings, job, etc. I wasn't interested in destroying lives or taking their home and savings. They agreed to print a solid retraction, fire the competitor/author and hire someone without skin in the game to pen that column. Here's the problem: Retractions don't work. We saw an immediate and lasting hit to product sales. It took about a year to recover from the hit piece. Reputation is something that is hard to regain, particularly when people enter a fearful mental state. In retrospect I should have been smarter and should have gone for a financial settlement of sorts to compensate for the damage they caused. Our competitor actually gained sales and status in the industry as a result of this hit piece. My point is that lies are like climbing to the top of a hill with a feather pillow, ripping it open and letting the winds take the feathers in all directions. Fixing the damage caused by lies requires finding every single feather, which is impossible. Sometimes I think we need to rethink this one aspect of the first amendment and either modify it or bolster it externally (through separate legislation) in order to prevent the kinds of lies and manipulation that have been a part of the press since, well, according to Jefferson, the very founding of this nation.

pdonis 6y ago
> I sincerely doubt the authors intended to protect lies, deceit and libel. I think the authors intended to prevent the Government from being able to declare by fiat what counts as "lies, deceit, and libel". That some people will use their freedom to do wrong is the price we pay for freedom. It's still preferable to the alternative. You actually describe the right way of dealing with lies, deceit, and libel in a free society later on: > In retrospect I should have been smarter and should have gone for a financial settlement of sorts to compensate for the damage they caused. Exactly. Another quote from Jefferson seems apt here: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
- robomartin 6y ago
  What I didn't describe was the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case. When you have publications, major TV networks, where almost literally every single piece they publish is filled with lies and manipulation it becomes an impossible task. A couple of years back I decided to highlight such lies to a group of people I was in regular online conversations with. Friends and people I have known for 20 to 30 years, not strangers. The effort and time required to research and gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate falsehoods in just one story per day was significant enough that I had to quit after a couple of months. Not to mention the fact that writing-up articles on these findings and then discussing them until people understood they had been lied to also consumed a ridiculous amount of time. The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it. Which, in turn, means people, over time, develop twisted narratives of reality that serve no useful purpose and do nothing but cause damage to society. The roughly 3.3 million people in the US who might be wiser or take the time to dig for the truth are powerless in rectifying the lies and manipulation. Refer to my feathers into the wind analogy on this last point. I sincerely doubt anyone would propose we should tolerate the level of lies and manipulation weaponized by mass media today. The difference with respect to 1807 is that everyone is now reachable via their phones and computers through myriad services, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube perhaps being the main culprits. I do concede and fully understand that this is an area of law that requires very careful consideration and a soft touch. There isn't a simple fix. I don't like the idea of saying "well, just litigate using existing law" because of then massive asymmetry between these large corporations and the people. This approach actually harms anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire. It would be almost impossible for the average Joe to go up against the major news sources except for the most egregious of cases (where a large law firm would take the case for a piece of the action). In other words, large news operators can utterly destroy your life and massively affect public perception and nothing ever happens to them. The simple proof of this is that they are full of lies today, which means they haven't been challenged and suffered enough financially to change their ways. Sometimes I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough. IANAL, so I don't know how that could be detrimental. As a lay person it makes complete sense: "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 truthful press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

pdonis 6y ago

> I sincerely doubt the authors intended to protect lies, deceit and libel. I think the authors intended to prevent the Government from being able to declare by fiat what counts as "lies, deceit, and libel". That some people will use their freedom to do wrong is the price we pay for freedom. It's still preferable to the alternative. You actually describe the right way of dealing with lies, deceit, and libel in a free society later on: > In retrospect I should have been smarter and should have gone for a financial settlement of sorts to compensate for the damage they caused. Exactly. Another quote from Jefferson seems apt here: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

robomartin 6y ago
What I didn't describe was the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case. When you have publications, major TV networks, where almost literally every single piece they publish is filled with lies and manipulation it becomes an impossible task. A couple of years back I decided to highlight such lies to a group of people I was in regular online conversations with. Friends and people I have known for 20 to 30 years, not strangers. The effort and time required to research and gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate falsehoods in just one story per day was significant enough that I had to quit after a couple of months. Not to mention the fact that writing-up articles on these findings and then discussing them until people understood they had been lied to also consumed a ridiculous amount of time. The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it. Which, in turn, means people, over time, develop twisted narratives of reality that serve no useful purpose and do nothing but cause damage to society. The roughly 3.3 million people in the US who might be wiser or take the time to dig for the truth are powerless in rectifying the lies and manipulation. Refer to my feathers into the wind analogy on this last point. I sincerely doubt anyone would propose we should tolerate the level of lies and manipulation weaponized by mass media today. The difference with respect to 1807 is that everyone is now reachable via their phones and computers through myriad services, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube perhaps being the main culprits. I do concede and fully understand that this is an area of law that requires very careful consideration and a soft touch. There isn't a simple fix. I don't like the idea of saying "well, just litigate using existing law" because of then massive asymmetry between these large corporations and the people. This approach actually harms anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire. It would be almost impossible for the average Joe to go up against the major news sources except for the most egregious of cases (where a large law firm would take the case for a piece of the action). In other words, large news operators can utterly destroy your life and massively affect public perception and nothing ever happens to them. The simple proof of this is that they are full of lies today, which means they haven't been challenged and suffered enough financially to change their ways. Sometimes I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough. IANAL, so I don't know how that could be detrimental. As a lay person it makes complete sense: "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 truthful press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."