The L Word

   One of the strongest terms to be leveled against someone is the one that accuses the perpetrator of deliberately spreading a falsehood. And the strongest preventive force against doing so is the fear of a lawsuit over defamation, or somehow damaging a reputation.
   That's why news media have long refrained from using the L word, instead using journalistic euphemisms like untruthful, or manifestly untrue, or contrary to fact.
   Recently, however, that process has been abandoned, and the L word has appeared regularly and often against the current Republican Party candidate for President of the United States of America.
   Liar.

   When something is printed or broadcast about someone that damages that person's reputation, the first response from the offended party is to demand a retraction. When that demand is rejected, another option is to sue for libel, alleging that the report is false, and damages the aggrieved person's reputation.
   But what if the report is true? It may well damage a reputation, but if it's true, it's not libel.
   That principle of law in America was established as far back as 1760, when John Peter Zenger published a report that the colonial governor of New York had a mistress.
  The governor was not pleased. He did not like the idea of his infidelity being exposed, so his lawyers filed suit, charging Zenger with publishing "a false libel."
   Zenger's defense lawyers, however, pointed out that the governor did indeed have a mistress, and it was well known that he had a mistress. Therefore, the report was true, and therefore not libelous.
   Currently, the GOP candidate for President says he wants to loosen the libel laws of America so he can file lawsuits over reports that he doesn't like "and win lots of money."

   Problem One: Libel laws are primarily state laws, not federal. The only federal law covering libel is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which upholds freedom of speech and of the press. To loosen the nation's libel laws, the aggrieved candidate would have to overturn the First Amendment, in defiance of Supreme Court rulings.
   Problem Two: If the report is true, it's not libel.
   Problem Three: Those in the public eye are open to comment and criticism for what they say and do, far more than citizens who are not well known public figures.
   Problem Four: In addition to the Zenger case, subsequent court rulings have held that besides being true, if the report is provably true, it further supports the defense that the report is not libelous.
   Problem Five: If one candidate for President, for example, sues for libel after being called a liar, he in turn can be sued for using the same term against his opponents.
   
   Meanwhile, major news media have stopped pussy-footing around in their descriptions and comments on the words and actions of the current GOP presidential nominee, using the L word early and often, and relying on the two basic defenses against accusations of libel.
   It's true, and it's provably true. He is indeed a liar, and here's the proof.

   So if you still want to vote for a man who is a proven liar, cheat and a fraud, that is your right.
   But be careful what you wish for.