Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Should Defamation Lawsuits Exist?

by January 13, 2025
January 13, 2025
Should Defamation Lawsuits Exist?

Jeffrey Miron and Jacob Winter

Last month, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to Donald Trump’s future presidential library to settle a defamation suit resulting from anchor George Stephanopoulos’ statements on March 10, 2024.

Defamation occurs when a person communicates false statements about another person that damage their reputation.

Since the founding of the country, defamation has been a tort—a matter for which one person can sue another. Additionally, defamation is a crime punishable by fines and/​or jail time in at least 14 states.

Libertarians object to criminal defamation laws because governments can use them to harass and silence criticism. Governments have used this tactic throughout our nation’s history—from the Sedition Act in 1798 to 2018, for example, when New Hampshire police arrested and charged a man for criticizing his town’s police chief. These laws run afoul of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

The ABC case, however, shows that defamation’s status as a tort is also problematic. Current law bars public figures from winning defamation suits unless they can prove the defendant communicated the statement “with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.” In the ABC case, Stephanopoulos repeated that Trump had been “found liable for rape,” which is technically inaccurate because the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, a separate category in New York at the time of the alleged incident. Thus, Stephanopoulos’ phrasing was incorrect but not seriously misleading.

Regardless of whether the settlement was justified, this case illustrates that civil defamation suits carry a danger. Even if government officials cannot imprison people who allegedly defame them, they can still use or threaten civil suits that effectively impose fines, jeopardizing freedom of speech.

Defamation suits potentially have benefits. If I spread false rumors that tarnish my neighbor’s reputation, it seems fair they should have redress.

Measuring such subjective harm is difficult, however. And if defamation suits did not exist, my neighbor could say whatever they wanted to correct the record or even defame me in retribution without fear that I would sue. This offers a natural incentive for people not to defame others.

The right question is therefore what legal framework best balances the benefits of defamation suits against their potential for censorship. The best approach is one that maximizes the public’s ability to engage in vigorous debates. Thus, we should eliminate defamation as both a crime and a tort.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Federal judge clears way for release of special counsel report on Trump election case
next post
Yes, California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage Law Has Killed Thousands of Jobs

You may also like

A Glimmer of Hope in a Sea of...

February 11, 2025

What Libertarianism Is and Isn’t

June 30, 2023

Trump Assassination Attempt: Investigation Update

July 15, 2024

The World Trade Organization at Thirty

April 26, 2024

Universal School Choice Is Good. But It’s Not...

April 27, 2023

High Costs of Low-Income Housing

December 18, 2023

The State of Student Loan Forgiveness: April 2024

April 1, 2024

Summarizing Harris’s Policy Book with a Word Count

September 27, 2024

A Record Quarter of a Million International Students...

March 19, 2024

United States v. Duarte Brief: Universal, Lifetime Disarmament...

September 24, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Call with China’s Xi, and Trump-Musk exchange fueled barbs during 20th week in office

      June 7, 2025
    • Trump’s conservative allies warn Congress faces critical ‘test’ with $9.4B spending cut proposal

      June 7, 2025
    • Tech ETFs are Leading Since April, but Another Group is Leading YTD

      June 7, 2025
    • TIMELINE: Inside the evolving relationship between Trump and Musk from first term to this week’s fallout

      June 7, 2025
    • Deadly drone wars are already here and the US is horribly unprepared

      June 7, 2025
    • Week Ahead: NIFTY’s Behavior Against This Level Crucial As The Index Looks At Potential Resumption Of An Upmove

      June 7, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,152)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,564)
    • Stocks (3,136)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved