Quote

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.

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.

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.

I've stopped caring about skeptics, but if they libel or defame me they will end up in court.

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.

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.

I never sue journalists. I employ journalists. I employ too many of them. I don't sue journalists.

You don't want to go around willy-nilly suing news organizations. That's probably self-defeating.

As any editor will tell you, startling newsroom revelations are generally met with queries about where the information came from and how the reporter got it. Seriously startling revelations are followed by the vetting of libel lawyers.