2 ms·
It is not a restriction on free speech, libel exists within a particular context where there is demonstrable material damage to the person that was the target o
by moralestapia 5y ago
It is not a restriction on free speech, libel exists within a particular context where there is demonstrable material damage to the person that was the target of said statements, which have to be demonstrably false and demonstrably published in bad faith. Libel laws, then, deal with the reparation of said inflicted damage.
A crude analogy, if you stab somebody, the crime is not the knife, it is the stabbing. No need to put a restriction on knives (although there's some but you get the idea).
- cmeacham98 5y agoThis is just straight up not true, as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you. Libel laws _are_ a restriction on your 1st Amendment rights - that was never really in question. Originally, libel was considered completely devoid of 1A protections. Most defamation laws even allowed you to sue for *truthful* statements. However, in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), the USSC reversed this and ruled that the 1st Amendment partially applied to libel and laws must be scoped as such.
- moralestapia 5y ago>as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you That's unnecessary, but probably you need to retake such class. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, if anything, established new criteria intended to further protect the rights given by the 1st Ammendment; among those the so called malice standard that I referenced in my earlier comment.