Libel and Libido

If it's true, it's not libel.

  The first and best defense against a libel allegation is truth.
  That legal precedent was established in America in 1760, when a New York City newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger, was charged with printing a "false libel" about the colonial governor. The defense lawyer, however, argued that the report -- that the governor had a mistress -- was true, and therefore not libelous.
   The jury agreed.
   There are other defenses, but the three main bulwarks are these: The report is true, it is provably true, and it was printed without malice.
   Meanwhile, there is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing a free press as well as free speech. In addition, there are legal protections covering other circumstances, including comments made by lawyers in open court, and things said by politicians during open, public meetings of Congress.
   Moreover, there is the doctrine of fair comment, which covers negative things said about public figures.
   Nonetheless, a leading presidential candidate this year wants to weaken libel laws so that he can more easily sue publications that criticize what he says and does, or otherwise prints negative things about him.
   Sorry, Donald, that's not enough. For one thing, there is no federal libel law, so you would have to sue each publication in each state. Meanwhile, you would also have to sue every columnist in every newspaper or magazine that criticizes you, as well as every TV and radio commentator.
   Big Brother you ain't.
   The colonial governor of New York didn't like it that Zenger printed "news" of the governor's mistress. But it was true, and many people already knew that the governor had a mistress.
   The current candidate may not like negative or critical coverage, but that doesn't make it unfair. Nor does your dislike of negative coverage make it untrue.
   Your insistence that everyone treat you "fairly" betrays an expectation that fair equals agreement.
   However, it is the duty of journalists to report truth. You may not like the question, but that's not going to stop journalists as representatives of the general public from asking tough questions. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
   An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, and journalism is crucial to an informed electorate.
   Moreover, threatening to change libel laws to stop unfavorable treatment of what you say and do betrays an arrogance bred by insecurity and a weak libido.
   But that's true for all bullies. They are insecure in their own sense of self and compensate for that basic personal weakness by beating up on others, either physically or verbally.
   Note that the leading Republican candidate has taken to referring to a major challenger as "Little Marco." That phrase was used at least six times during a televised debate this week. This is a typical manifestation of the Great American Fallacy, that bigger is better. And it is evidence of the candidate's deep-seated sense of insecurity.
 He may be taller, but that does not make him better.