Libel actions, when we look at them in perspective, are an ornament of a civilized society. They have replaced, after all, at least in most cases, a resort to weapons in defense of a reputation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I mean, in some cases with libel laws, you know, they can write things about people who have no course of action, because they can't afford to take legal action against them.
It is a lamentable observation that because of the way our laws are skewed toward the plaintiff, London has become the libel capital of the world.
The problem is that in our country, they make it almost impossible for politicians to win anything. In England it's easier to win a libel suit.
More people need to understand the games secular liberals play. Here's one rule-of-thumb: No matter how bad a story sounds - particularly if it sounds bad - recognize the pattern of defamation.
As a lawyer who has dealt in defamation, I know that someone's reputation has to be lowered in the eyes of right-thinking people to sue.
If you call your opponent a politician, it's grounds for libel.
No other country in the world gives protection like that, but it is not absolute protection. People sometimes meet that high burden and win libel suits, and in those cases I think they ought to win.
Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel.
Terrorism has come to publishing. It is a grave concern when criticism is turned to mortal threats.
All the libel lawyers will tell you there's no libel any more, that everyone's given up.