Walter Block Issues Statement About His Lawsuit Against The New York Times

Professor Walter Block of the University of Loyola, New Orleans is suing The New York Times for misrepresenting his views and failing to correct the misrepresentation. Below is a statement from Professor Block on his lawsuit. -RW 

New York Times lawsuit update.

By Walter E. Block

In late 2013, I was contacted by Sam Tanenhaus of the New York Times. He was writing an article about Rand Paul, and wanted to learn about libertarianism. I get dozens of requests like this, and respond to them all. I forget how long and how many times I spoke to him on the phone. My recollection is, 3 times, for a total of about 2 hours. (Boy oh boy, do I wish I had taped every minute of these conversations.) I was having great difficulty explaining that libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle (NAP) coupled with private property rights based upon homesteading. He just could or would not get it, despite my intensive efforts. Finally, I resorted to the most basic and stark illustration I could think of in my effort to explain this philosophy to him. I said something to the effect that the only thing wrong with slavery was that it violated the NAP. Innocent people were kidnapped, and compelled into forced labor. I said that the other accompaniments of slavery (picking cotton, eating gruel, living in a shack) were really superficial. The real problem with slavery was the initiation of violence against innocent people. I maintained that if we eliminated the NAP violation, but kept all the other occurrences, then slavery wouldn’t be so bad. I was trying, in the most dramatic way I could, to convey to him the centrality, the importance, of the NAP to libertarianism.

Then, the article appeared: Tanenhaus, Sam and Jim Rutenberg.  2014. “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.” January 26. Much to my horror and dismay, this essay made it sound as if I thought, as a libertarian, that actual slavery was not so bad. I figured I could clear this up easily. I would explain that actual slavery was an abomination, and that when I said it would not be so bad, I was not refereeing to this actual practice, but rather to a hypothetical. So, I got in touch with Sam Tanenhaus and asked him to publish a letter in the New York Times, or in any other way publicly make clear that I only opined that this theoretical, hypothetical slavery I had concocted was “not so bad.” He declined to do so. I then wrote to the editor of this newspaper asking him for a retraction, a published explanation along these lines. He also declined to do so. I sent him a one word response: “Wow!” (Several friends of mine urged me to give him a two word FY response, but I was too polite to do so.)

Meanwhile, the president of my University, Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J. to his shame, along with 17 of my faculty colleagues, published letters in the Maroon, the Loyola student newspaper, blasting me for favoring slavery. None of them had the decency to ask me about this before publishing their vituperative letters to the editor. They were appalled and horrified that I publicly favored slavery, as actually practiced in the U.S. before 1865. (Were I president of a university, and one of my professors was quoted in the newspaper of record saying he favored slavery, I would have called him into my office and said to him: “Please, tell me you were misquoted.” If so, I would have defended, not attempted to publicly humiliate him.)

I had had enough. I went to lawyer, and asked him to sue the New York Times in my behalf. The strongest argument I had was that Frederick Douglass, a sort of 19^th century cross between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, had published, unbeknownst to me at the time, a viewpoint very similar to what I had said in my interview with Tanenhaus (I again thank my friend Tom Woods for pointing this out to me):

“My feelings were not the result of any marked cruelty in the treatment I received; they sprang from the consideration of my being a slave at all. It was slavery, not its mere incidents I hated. I had been cheated. I saw through the attempt to keep me in ignorance. I saw that slaveholders would have gladly made me believe that they were merely acting under the authority of God in making a slave of me and in making slaves of others, and I felt to them as to robbers and deceivers. The feeding and clothing me well could not atone for taking my liberty from me.” -- Growing in knowledge. - Frederick Douglass, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass: From 1817-1882 (published 1882).

My lawyers, Ward Lafleur and Marc Mandich, of Lafayette, LA, duly sued the New York Times. They wrote a brilliant brief (I highly recommend these attorneys) explaining my position. I thought that would be it: the newspaper of record would lose the case, and would be forced to retract. In the event, I was mistaken. Not only did the judge side with the defendant, he awarded them legal fees. At $1200 per hour, I would be out of pocket for quite a bit of money. (DO NOT SEND ME ANY MONEY RIGHT NOW. I MAY LATER NEED YOUR HELP FUNDING THIS LAWSUIT OF MINE IF I CONTINUE TO LOSE MY APPEALS. IF YOU ARE OUTRAGED BY THIS BEHAVIOR OF THAT NEWSPAPER, SEND YOUR DONATIONS, INSTEAD, TO THE MISES INSTITUTE, AND TARGET LIBERTY WHICH HAVE BEEN VALIENT IN SUPPORTING ME ON THIS EFFORT OF MINE TO PROMOTE JUSTICE.)

The judge’s argument was that the New York Times had accurately reported; they had used my exact words: slavery was “not so bad.” Therefore the defendant was innocent. My lawyers in their initial brief, and now in their appeal to a higher court (see attached) are attempting to make the case that mere use of my exact words will not suffice as a defense, since they were used out of context; they were twisted in such a manner as to get me to appear to say the exact opposite of what I meant to say, and so clearly did say.

My hope is that this appeal will succeed. If not, I intend to keep appealing until I have attained justice in this case, or have exhausted all such options open to me. Please read the attached material if you are interested in being further informed of this case.

Also, if you want still more material on this episode, here are some more readings that might be of interest. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Wildes’ letter was based on a serious misunderstanding.” February 20;

Block, Walter E. 2014. “The faculty’s letter was misinformed and lacks integrity.” February 20;

Defenders of Block (a small selection of over 100 letters so far posted):

Anderson, William L. 2014. “The Priest and His Clever Lie.” February 25

Beane, Larry. 2014. “In response to Wildes’ letter.” February 14;

Cavallo, Jo Ann. 2014. “Slandering Walter Block.” February 16

DiLorenzo, Tom. 2014. “Fascism University: The Enemies of Freedom and Tolerance at Loyola University New Orleans.”

Gill, James. 2014. “Block raises controversy again.” The Advocate, February 20, p. 11B

Henderson, David. 2014. “Open Letter to President Wildes re Professor Block.” February 13

Landsburg, Steven. 2014. “Block Heads.” February 13

Lingenfelter, Jonathan. 2014. “Wildes’ letter assumed too much.” February 14

Wenzel, Robert. 2014. “The Outpouring of Support for Walter Block.” March 1;

Wenzel, Robert. 2014. “Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy.” March 1

Woods, Tom. 2014. “Jesuit University attacks libertarian professor; I respond.”

Adams, Devinn. 2014. “Professor accuses New York Times of libel.” February, 20;

Morris, Robert. 2014. “Professor’s defense of segregated lunch counters creates controversy at Loyola University.” Uptown Messenger. February 20

Cavallo, Christina. 2014. “Columbia Student Defends Walter Block.” February 20;

Wolverton, Joe. 2014. “NYT Smears Rand Paul with Claims of Racism, Religious Fanaticism.” February 1

Lazarowitz, Scott. 2014. “Yes, Slavery Is Offensive.” February 24;

Light, Christian, Robert Wenzel. 2014. “Loyola University President Responds to Criticism Regarding His Walter Block Comments with More Outrageous Comments.” February 24;

Smith, Adam. 2014. “A Tulane Student Writes About His Interaction with Walter Block.” March 4

Block, Walter. 2014. “Seeking lawyer to sue my university for libel.” October 27;

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2014. “The Lying, Libelous, Leninist Louts at Loyola University-New Orleans.” October 28

Walter E. Block, Ph.D. is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at the Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business,  Loyola University New Orleans

COURT DOCUMENTS

Original Brief: Walter Block v. Sam Tanenhaus, Jim Rutenberg, New York Times Company

Record Excerpts of Appellant of Plaintiff- Appellant Walter Block in Walter Block v. Sam Tanenhaus, Jim Rutenberg, New York Times Company