The return of criminal libel, with truth not being a defense?

[Robert Sheridan]

I believe that the Secret Service, which protects the president and  
other high officials, including some foreign visiting dignitaries,  
takes all such utterances seriously and checks out the ones that they  
think bear closer scrutiny.  I'm sure that they are capable of  
dismissing "bar talk," for example, from other more serious stuff.  I  
also think that we're sensitive to such talk for reasons that  
include:  we've lost a lot of presidents to assassins and we have any  
number of people capable of going off the deep end when aroused or are  
just mad.  The individual who shot Reagan to impress the actress comes  
to mind.

It seems to me that if a person is foolish enough to utter a threat  
such as the one referenced, and is reported, and the remark is  
investigated, say by a visit and an interview to evaluate seriousness  
and potential threat, that it is not unjust if this person's name  
remains in a database of names of people who've made threats, in case  
of a future visit, say to the school, so someone can keep an eye on  
him in case he's decided to turn thought to deed.

Investigation is not necessarily destruction, one might say.

To answer the "At what point do we want the Secret Service to take  
such threats seriously?" question, I should think we want it to take  
them all seriously until, upon reflection, they decide to dismiss or  
check out further.

On the subject of loose talk which some people take seriously enough  
to inspire official action, I understand that it is bad policy to make  
jokes about airline hijacking or bombs while waiting in line to board  
the plane, or to your seatmate.  What we choose to joke about may not  
be terribly funny and many a true word...but I don't want to sound any  
more like Polonius...

rs
sfls

On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Jonathan Chausovsky wrote:

> I was taking a Con Law class with Sandy Levinson back in the Fall of
> 2000.  Somehow the idea was mentioned by a student (I forget the
> context, but remember that the Florida controversy was raging) about
> an assassination attempt on Bush.  The student who made the comment
> was then rebuked by other students, because this was really beyond the
> pale.  The student defended himself by saying something to the effect
> that, "Its not like I would have any chance to do this." To which
> another student replied, "He (Bush) is right down the street."  The
> Law School at Texas is about a mile from the State Capital, where Bush
> was sitting governor, and (presumptive) president-elect.
>
> This, I think, illustrates the difficulty of making distinctions based
> on distance. A person merely mouthing off can be in much closer
> proximity than she or he realizes.  The problem is partially about
> making distinctions based on mere mouthing off, and legitimate
> threats. That, of course, reflects motive.  But given that a climate
> of hostility can be created by incendiary comments, at what point do
> we want the Secret Service to take such comments seriously?
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Robert Sheridan <rs at robertsheridan.com 
> > wrote:
>> At the risk of speaking overbroadly, which I wouldn't dispute, I  
>> was seeking
>> a principle the existence of which I don't know exists.  I'm  
>> assuming that
>> there must be (or should be, let's say) a principle which would  
>> hold that
>> freedom of expression has a limit under circumstances which, while  
>> we don't
>> see them often, may in fact occur.  I heard today that a political
>> organization in Southern California had posted items calling for the
>> lynching of Sen. Obama.  This is not what I'm aiming at, as Sen.  
>> Obama is
>> far away and this is sort of scurrilous speech which, while  
>> deplorable, is
>> more or less idiocy as usual in America.
>> Suppose a neighbor is legitimately convicted of a heinous crime,  
>> say some
>> form of child abuse, and the other neighbors decide they no longer  
>> want him
>> around, i.e. living in their neighborhood or apartment comples.   
>> What can
>> they do?  They cannot assault him, for the government has arrogated  
>> unto
>> itself the exclusive use of force and violence in the enforcement  
>> of laws
>> and societal interests.
>> Suppose the neighbors decide to parade around the person's home  
>> with picket
>> signs.  Or post leaflets on the neighbors' doors calling for the  
>> expulsion
>> from the building or the block of the person convicted of  
>> molestation.  All
>> constitutionally protected, up to a point, I assume.
>> My question is whether there is or should be a point beyond which the
>> neighbors cannot go in "hounding" this person.  How long before a  
>> warning to
>> others becomes a form of abuse of the individual.  As I understand  
>> it, under
>> Megan's law, the convicted molester's name may appear in an online  
>> database.
>> I think I've read that, as a result of neighbors taking the law  
>> into their
>> own hands, such people have been attacked, so now the police want  
>> to know
>> who is asking, and do not release the information to just anybody  
>> where they
>> control the process of disseminating the information.  You may have  
>> to go to
>> the police station to access the details.
>> In America, we don't banish people by any formal process, apart from
>> imprisoning them after a trial or plea of guilty, i.e. a legal  
>> process which
>> we consider legitimate.
>> I doubt we allow banishment, informally.
>> Should there be a legal process leading to a court order of  
>> banishment,
>> shunning, or ostracism from one's community?  A seemingly new cause  
>> of
>> action?  A lawsuit for banishment?
>> If government hasn't enacted such a remedy, wherein does the general
>> population have such a right to banish someone informally, strictly  
>> through
>> the use of free speech?  Because I can imagine a group of dedicated
>> neighbors keeping up their free speech rights until the person is  
>> forced to
>> leave under fear of retaliation for staying, in implied threat, as  
>> it were.
>> In cases of threatened abuse, usually we place limits.
>> Perhaps this is all academic, but what better place to have an  
>> academic
>> discussion than here?
>> Incidentally, I could add night-riding, pogroms, and lynchings, to  
>> the sort
>> of mob violence we've all read about which may start out as  
>> exercises in
>> protected activity (emphasis on the 'may'), but which turn into far  
>> worse
>> down the road.
>> rs
>> sfls
>>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>>
>>    How is this to be reconciled with Organization for a Better  
>> Austin v.
>> Keefe, which held that speech aimed at coercing someone to change his
>> practices through the threat of ostracism is constitutionally  
>> protected?
>> Or, even more on point, with NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, which  
>> held the
>> same even though the speech -- there, publicizing the names of black
>> citizens who chose not to go along with a boycott of white-owned  
>> stores --
>> posed a real risk that others would violently attack the people  
>> whose names
>> were publicized?
>>
>>    Now I suppose someone could say that Claiborne and Keefe involved
>> "political speech," because it tied the particular names of supposed
>> malefactors with broader political debates.  OK, say someone says  
>> "X is a
>> child molester, and the failure to prosecute him just shows what a  
>> corrupt
>> or ineffectual legal system we have."  Does that make it  
>> political?  If it's
>> not enough, then it's hard to see how the naming of private  
>> citizens' names
>> in Claiborne (which actually literally was just "these people are  
>> the ones
>> who aren't going along with our boycott," followed by names) would be
>> political enough, either.
>>
>>    I take it the premise of those cases is that when people inflict  
>> "harm"
>> by persuading others of things -- including of someone's supposedly  
>> being a
>> bad person, or having acted badly -- that sort of harm is  
>> constitutionally
>> privileged.  Society holding trials may be limited by all sorts of
>> constraints, because it inflicts harm by actually locking people  
>> up, taking
>> away their property, and the like.  That, for instance, is why you  
>> can't
>> lock someone up as a criminal unless his guilt is proven beyond a  
>> reasonable
>> doubt.  But it hardly follows that people should be forcibly shut  
>> up from
>> discussing his guilt (to the point of being themselves thrown in  
>> prison for
>> such discussions) when they have reason to believe that he is  
>> indeed likely
>> guilty (but perhaps can't prove it to a 95% certainty using legally
>> admissible evidence).
>>
>>    Eugene
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Robert Sheridan [mailto:rs at robertsheridan.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:09 AM
>> To: Howard Schweber
>> Cc: Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>> Subject: Re: The return of criminal libel, with truth not being a  
>> defense?
>>
>> It seems to me that there is a difference in kind between various  
>> forms of
>> denigrating speech.
>> Much 'political' speech is deemed protected opinion.  (I don't know  
>> what Mr.
>> Ayers is thinking these days about his public demonization despite  
>> years of
>> make-up work.)
>>
>> In many cases, to defame someone is to reduce his/her reputation,  
>> hence
>> status in the community, resulting in damages.
>> But there is another kind, which has the purpose, it seems, or at  
>> least the
>> effect, to drive the person subjected to it from the community, to
>> ostracize, to banish.
>> In reading about China, I see that during the Cultural Revolution,  
>> the Red
>> Guards (students) and other tormenters, often targeted their  
>> teachers,
>> government officials, and family members for being 'rightist' and for
>> somehow falling afoul of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.  Those  
>> targeted
>> were beaten and sometimes killed.  The president of China, Liu Shao- 
>> qui was
>> so killed.  Imagine, the president being hounded (and beaten and  
>> denied
>> medical treatment) to death.  Or they were sent down to the  
>> countryside for
>> years to clean toilets and learn from peasants.  They were forced  
>> into
>> self-confessional "struggle sessions" where they "spoke bitterness"  
>> and were
>> then often hounded out of a society which traditionally valued  
>> harmony.
>> When the group congealed to sacrifice a parent or teacher, as often
>> happened, it reminded me of our own culture in the West, of turning  
>> on
>> supposed witches.  This still happens in Africa today.  You can  
>> say, "Well,
>> that's China, but we're the U.S."  But I think that would be short- 
>> sighted.
>> The reason I think it relevant is that I don't see anything human  
>> as being
>> irrelevant.  We still demonize people and try to tar their friends  
>> for
>> political ends.
>> Denouncing someone as a child molester in any forum outside of a  
>> legal
>> procedure seems of a piece with this, especially when the report is  
>> false or
>> inflated.
>> Hounding someone to ruin him in society seems quite different than
>> ordinarily protected political speech, regardless of whether there  
>> is an
>> element of truth to the charge.  Magna Carta speaks to ruining a  
>> man in
>> society, if recollection serves.
>> Since when can ordinary civilians be entitled to inflict more  
>> suffering than
>> society as a group has a right to inflict, without a trial?
>> rs
>> sfls
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can  
>> (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can  
>> (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan Chausovsky
> Assistant Professor
> Political Science Department
> SUNY-Fredonia
> E374 Thompson Hall
> Fredonia, NY 14063
> (716) 673-4673
>