Friday, February 26, 2016

Paging Walter Block; Trump on Libel Law

From Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block:
[P]aradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not
true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact...

The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.


  1. Block sued the NYT for libel -

  2. I hope he wins too. Obviously you can't "own" what someone else thinks about you, but I don't really have anything against using all means to hurt the State and any of its puppets. All the more fun using their own laws against them.

  3. A little fuzzy about "they" and "hit piece". It could mean MSM reports or it could mean a critique by Robert Wenzel. Sedition laws are for the benefit of the state.