X-Message-Number: 22380
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: 
Subject: libel

To James Swayze:

With all due respect, the legal staff retained by newspapers
and magazines probably know more about libel law than you do.
I have dealt with these attorneys from time to time, as a
writer, over the years. They are on retainer to pre-empt any
possible libel suit. Consequently, unlike many attorneys,
they are highly motivated to _avoid_ law suits.

When you read a sentence such as "From the published reports
in Sports Illustrated, one gets the impression that the
people at Alcor are..." [fill in the blank] the writer is
stating that another publication is his source, and he "gets
an impression" from it; he is not stating a fact. He is open,
in theory, to changing his opinion. Consequently this
statement is contrived to avoid being libelous.

It is possible that Sports Illustrated made a couple of slips
in their coverage, but it is also evident that they were
quite careful.

I am not saying who is right, who is wrong, and how this will
play out. I believe some mistakes were made which may prove a
fertile ground for law suits. But libel law is not as simple
as you may conclude from reading a dictionary definition. It
is worth noting that successful suits for libel, in the
United States, are extremely rare.

--Charles Platt

(Who once sat through a four-week libel trial of a writer
whose defamatory statement consisted of referring to another
writer as "crazy.")

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22380