Discussion:
Criminal Libel Statutes -- Larry declares that my assertion that my term""foreign bankers of the federal reserve" is nutty and that he has and can easily refute it.
(too old to reply)
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-25 02:06:19 UTC
Permalink
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.

Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."



Criminal-libel statutes, state by state

Compiled by Bill Kenworthy
and Beth Chesterman
First Amendment Center Online
08.10.06
Alabama
"Libel tending to provoke breach of peace.
Any person who publishes a libel of another which may tend to provoke a breach
of the peace shall be punished, on conviction, by fine and imprisonment in the
county jail, or hard labor for the county; the fine not to exceed in any case
$500.00 and the imprisonment or hard labor not to exceed six months."

Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-160

Alaska
No statute.

Arizona
No statute.

Arkansas
Arkansas repealed its criminal libel statute in 2005.

California
No statute.

Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to
prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the
statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the
extent that it criminalized statements made by one private individual about
another private individual. The court also held that "actual malice" need not be
proved in cases between two private individuals.

Connecticut
No statute.

Delaware
No statute.

District of Columbia
The District of Columbia repealed its criminal libel statute in 2001.

Florida
Florida has created five separate libel-related crimes:


1.. Any individual who publishes a libel is guilty of a first-degree
misdemeanor. Fla. Stat. § 836.01 (2005). Additionally, when the libel is
anonymous or pseudonymous, the editor, owner, manager and/or publisher of the
publication in which the libel appeared may also be guilty. Id. at 836.03.


2.. Anyone who merely transmits libelous information to a newspaper is guilty
of a second-degree misdemeanor. Id. at 836.09.


3.. Libeling a bank or financial institution is a first-degree misdemeanor.
Id. at 836.06.


4.. Publishing a potentially libelous claim against an individual without
giving that individual's full name is a first-degree misdemeanor. Id. at 836.02.


5.. Attempting to extort a benefit from someone by threatening to publish a
libel concerning him or her is a second-degree felony. Id. 836.05

State v. Chase, 94 Fla. 1071 (1927), held that a prosecution for criminal-libel
must establish malice and that truth is a defense to a libel charge when that
charge relates to materials published about a public official.

Before a criminal-libel statute can be enforced, it must pass Florida's
procedural requirements. Prosecutors are required to notify a publication within
five days of when it is accused of libel. Id. at 836.07. Once notified, if a
publication can establish it printed the potentially libelous material in good
faith, it has anywhere from ten to forty-five days to publish a correction and
retraction depending on how frequently it is published. If a correction is
published, the charges will not go forward. Id. at 836.08.

Georgia
"(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a
privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he
communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead
or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which
tends to provoke a breach of the peace.


(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a
misdemeanor."

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd 401 U.S. 985, held that
the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the
provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v.
State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional
because the language "tends to provoke a breach of peace" is vague and
overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and
remains on the books.

Hawaii
No statute.

Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

"Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another,
publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not
exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6)
months." Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

"An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable
motive for making it is shown." Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at
18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id.
at 18-4806.

"True and fair" reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a
showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to "true and fair" reports receive no
protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member
or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.

Illinois
Illinois law makes it a misdemeanor to defame or libel a bank or other financial
institution with the intent to damage its solvency; truth is an absolute
defense. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 300/1 (2005).

Indiana
No statute.

Iowa
Iowa has no criminal-libel statute, but the case Park v. Hill, 380 F. Supp. 2d
1002 (N.D. Iowa 2005), holds that Iowa law defines libel as "malicious
publication, expressed either in printing or in writing, or by signs and
pictures, tending to injure the reputation of another person or to expose the
person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure the person in the
maintenance of the person's business." Id. at 1015. Moreover, Art. 1, § 7 of the
Iowa Constitution provides that truth shall be a defense in all criminal-libel
actions.

State v. Heacock, 76 N.W. 654 (Iowa 1898), establishes that criminal
prosecutions for libel have occurred in Iowa. It does not give the elements for
criminal libel in the state, but the indictment in the case charges "that the
article was maliciously and willfully inserted in the [newspaper] by the
defendant, and that it was willfully and maliciously circulated and distributed
by him, 'for the purpose of defaming, injuring, and vilifying the person and
character of [the libeled individual] and others, and the same tended to provoke
the said [libeled individual] and others to wrath, and to expose them to public
hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and to deprive them of the benefits of public
confidence and social intercourse.'" Id. at 655.

Kansas
"(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by
any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with
actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred,
contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public
confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of
one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information
communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of
criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor." Kan. Stat. Ann §
21-4004 (2005).

The court in Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), found the
statute required actual malice in matters of public concern and further held
that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad.

Kentucky
"Court may bring criminal action for libel or slander - Punish resistance to
judicial order.
Nothing in KRS 432.230 to 432.270 shall prevent any court or judge from
proceeding against any person writing or publishing a libel or slanderous words
concerning such court or judge in relation to his judicial conduct in court by
indictment, nor prevent any court from punishing any person guilty of a contempt
in resisting or disobeying any judicial order or process issued by or under the
authority of such court."

Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. 432.280

Louisiana
"Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone
other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of
the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their
business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five
hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both."

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005)

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), holds that the Louisiana statute is
unconstitutional so far as it punishes true statements about public officials
that are uttered with malicious purpose. Additionally, the statute is
unconstitutional in respect to its failure to differentiate whether false
statements against public officials were made with malice, reckless disregard of
truth or falsity, or in a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement.
However, Louisiana's statute is not unconstitutional per se as long as any
actual prosecutions under it follow the constraints laid out in Garrison. Snyder
v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff'd 397 U.S. 589. The Louisiana
statute still remains on the books.

Maine
No statute.

Maryland
No statute.

Massachusetts
"Libel of Groups of Persons Because of Race, Color or Religion.
Whoever publishes any false written or printed material with intent to
maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because
of race, color or religion shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both. The defendant may prove in defense that the publication was
privileged or was not malicious. Prosecutions under this section shall be
instituted only by the attorney general or by the district attorney for the
district in which the alleged libel was published." Ann. Laws Mass. § 98C

"Justification in Cases of Libel.
The defendant in a prosecution for writing or publishing a libel may introduce
in evidence the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as
libelous, and the truth shall be a justification, unless actual malice is
proved." Ann. Laws Mass. § 8

Michigan
Michigan law makes it a felony to "willfully and maliciously" libel a bank or
other investment institution. Mich. Comp. Law § 750.97 (2005). It also is a
misdemeanor to falsely accuse another of a crime or "particular conduct," such
as lack of chastity. Id. at 750.370. The law also makes it a misdemeanor to make
a false or malicious statement regarding the financial condition of an insurer.
Id. at 750.389

Minnesota
"Criminal Defamation
Subdivision 1. Definition. Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person
or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or
disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.

Subd. 2. Acts constituting. Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character
orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any defamatory matter to
a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal
defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to
payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both."

Minn. Stat. 609.765

Also: Minn. Stat. 609.77 makes it a misdemeanor to pass false information to a
media source with the intention that it will be published and defame another
individual.

Mississippi
"Libel; penalty
Any person who shall be convicted of writing or publishing any libel, shall be
fined in such sum or imprisoned in the county jail for such term as the court,
in its discretion, may adjudge, having regard to the nature and enormity of the
offense, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment." Miss. Code Ann.§
97-3-55

"Libel; truth as defense
In every criminal prosecution for libel it shall be lawful for the defendant,
upon the trial, to give in evidence the truth of the matter written or
published, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as
libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends,
the defendant shall be acquitted." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-57

Boydstun v. State, 249 So. 2d 411 (Miss. 1971). The Mississippi Supreme Court
noted that the criminal-libel statute makes it a crime to publish "any libel"
yet does not define libel. "No Mississippi case has redefined the crime in
understandable terms, and since the law must be made on a case to case basis,
the elements of the crime are so indefinite and uncertain that it should not be
enforced as a penal offense." Despite this decision, the libel statutes remain
on the books.

Missouri
No statute.

Montana
"Criminal defamation.
(1) Defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or
association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society
or injury to the person's or its business or occupation.

(2) Whoever, with knowledge of its defamatory character, orally, in writing, or
by any other means, including by electronic communication, as defined in
45-8-213, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the
consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation and may
be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 6 months in the county jail or a
fine of not more than $500, or both.

Statute 45-8-212

State v. Helfrich, 277 Mont. 452 (Mont. 1996). Declared statute 45-8-212
unconstitutionally overbroad: "It violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme
Court in New York Times and Garrison and Article II, § 7 of the Montana
Constitution because, on its face, the statute prohibits truthful criticism when
not communicated for good motives and justifiable ends." However, 45-8-212 is
still on the books.

Nebraska
No statute.

Nevada
Nevada makes it a "gross misdemeanor" to libel the living through publication of
material that would expose them to ridicule, or to "blacken the memory of the
dead." Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish
libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There
is no "intent" requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true
and published "for good motive and justifiable ends." Id. at 200.510

"Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another
shall be deemed a publication thereof." Id. at 200.520.

Editors and proprietors of published material may be held liable, but an editor
or proprietor may escape guilt by proving "that the matter complained of was
published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes by another who
had no authority from him to make such publication, and was retracted by him as
soon as known with an equal degree of publicity." Id. at 200.530.

Nevada law makes it a "gross misdemeanor" either to threaten to libel somebody,
or to solicit personal gain in return for not libeling somebody. Id. at 200.560.

Note: In an unpublished order, federal Judge Johnnie Rawlinson approved an
agreement between the Nevada Press Association and the Nevada Attorney General
that the statutes would not be enforced because they were unconstitutional. In
Nevada Press Association v. del Papa, CV-S-98-00991-JBR (1998), the final
judgment stated that the statutes were unconstitutional because they were
overbroad and punished individuals for the publication of truthful statements.

New Hampshire
"I. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he purposely communicates to
any person, orally or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and
knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or
ridicule.

II. As used in this section "public" includes any professional or social group
of which the victim of the defamation is a member." NH Rev. Stat. Ann 644:11
(2005)

In Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court
held that it was constitutional for residents and nonresidents of New Hampshire
to bring a suit under the statute.

New Jersey
No statute.

New Mexico
"Libel consists of making, writing, publishing, selling or circulating without
good motives and justifiable ends, any false and malicious statement affecting
the reputation, business or occupation of another, or which exposes another to
hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace.

Whoever commits libel is guilty of a misdemeanor." NM Stat. Ann. § 30-11-1
(2005)

State v. Powell, 839 P.2d 139 (NM Ct. App. 1992), held that New Mexico's
criminal-libel statute is unconstitutional as applied to public statements
involving matters of public concern. Under the First Amendment, a false
defamatory public statement which involves matters of public concern is subject
to a criminal-libel statute only if the statement is made with actual malice.
New Mexico's statute only requires a "malice" standard and therefore the court
held the statute could not be applied to cases such as those involving public
statements pertaining to matters of public concern because they required an
actual malice standard.

New York
No statute.

North Carolina
"If any person shall state, deliver or transmit by any means whatever, to the
manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper or periodical for
publication therein any false and libelous statement concerning any person or
corporation, and thereby secure the publication of the same, he shall be guilty
of a Class 2 misdemeanor." NC Gen. Stat § 14-47 (1993)

North Dakota
"1. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he willfully publishes
defamatory matter or knowingly procures such publication or in any way knowingly
aids or assists in the same being done.

2. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

a. The matter alleged to be defamatory is true; or

b. The matter alleged to be defamatory was contained in a privileged
communication." N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-01(2) (2005)

Id. at (3) requires that the accused individual must have published the material
with either actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

Ohio
Generally, owners, licensees, and operators at television and radio stations
cannot be held liable for defamatory statements about candidates for public
office made during a broadcast from their station. Ohio Rev. Stat. § 2739.03
(2005)

If a broadcast station circulates a false statement, rumor or allegation about a
civil society organization, business, or public official or candidate for public
office, the station must run any rebutting statement received from the
individual or organization that was the subject of the broadcast. See Id. at
(C)-(G); see Id. at 2739.13-16 (2005) (establishing a similar duty for
newspapers).

A newspaper may not threaten a public official with publication of a defamatory
story for the purpose of influencing the official for or against any proposed
law, ordinance, or legislative act. Id. at 2739.18.

The punishment for these offenses is a fine of between $500 and $1,000, with
some of the more serious allegations also punishable by up to a year in jail.
Id. at 2739.99

Oklahoma
The state has promulgated four libel-related crimes:


1.. "Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing,
printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which
exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which
tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation,
or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the
memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or
friends." 21 Okla. Stat. § 771 (2005). It is not, however, necessary that anyone
actually read or otherwise learn of the libel for a conviction to be secured;
mere exposure to the possibility of being read by another person is enough. Id.
at 776.


2.. Any person who makes a libel, willfully publishes one or willfully or
knowingly aids in the making of a libel may be punished by up to one year in
jail and/or a fine of $1,000 (and shall be liable in civil court to the injured
party). Id. at 773.


3.. One who "falsely and maliciously or falsely and wantonly" imputes
unchastity to a female is guilty of a crime, but one with much less severe
penalties: $25.00 in fines or 90 days in jail. In such cases, the state need not
prove the imputed information to be false; rather, the truth of the information
is an affirmative defense. Id. at 779-80.


4.. "Willfully, knowingly, or maliciously" spreading false rumors is also a
crime. Id. at 781; see Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d (Okla. Crim. App. 1983)
(upholding this statute as not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad).

A person who threatens to make a libel is presumed to have the same "intent"
(mens rea) as one who actually does make a libel. Id. at 778.

The truth of information published with "good motives" and "justifiable ends" is
a defense to libel. Id. at 774. An individual will not be liable for a statement
if the statement is privileged information that is published as part of a
legislative or judicial process, as part of one's official duties, or as a "fair
and true" report of the former. In the case of unprivileged information,
publication gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of malice. Id. at 772.
Moreover, even when a newspaper makes a "fair and true" report of one of the
above proceedings, if it does so with malicious intent, it can still be
convicted of libel - although malice will not be presumed from publication. Id.
at 777.

The Oklahoma statute contains the language "blackens the name of the dead,"
which alludes to a cause of action for a deceased individual or their relatives.
However, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), the court
held that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased
individual nor could the deceased individual's estate or relatives recover for
the libel. The Oklahoma statute does not include language that expressly changes
the common law requirement that the individual be living nor does the statute
language expressly create a right for a deceased individual or their relatives
to recover for the libel. Therefore, the court held that in Oklahoma an action
for libel cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased individual. Nonetheless, the
statute language has remained unchanged.

Oregon
No statute.

Pennsylvania
No statute.

Rhode Island
No statute.

South Carolina
"Slander and libel.
Any person who shall with malicious intent originate, utter, circulate or
publish any false statement or matter concerning another the effect of which
shall tend to injure such person in his character or reputation shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction therefor, be subject to punishment by fine
not to exceed five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court;
provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to abridge any right any person
may have by way of an action for damages for libel or slander under the existing
law."

South Carolina Code Annotated § 16-7-150

Fitts v. Kolb, 779 F. Supp. 1502, 1513 (S.C. 1991). "The plaintiffs contend that
the criminal libel statute does not pass constitutional muster because it is
both overbroad and vague. The court agrees in both respects." Despite this
ruling, the South Carolina statute remains on the books.

South Dakota
South Dakota has no criminal-libel statute but SD Codified Laws § 20 outlines
the definition of defamation and provides that "every person is obligated to
refrain from infringing on the rights of others not to be defamed." SD Codified
Laws § 20-11-1. Although SD Codified Laws § 20 does not expressly make available
a criminal prosecution for libel, Article 6 § 5 of the South Dakota Constitution
states that truth is a defense in criminal-libel cases. Additionally, a court
has held that it is possible that in South Dakota criminal-libel cases, the
defendant may not waive his right to a jury trial. State v. Thwing, 172 N.W.2d
277 (S.D. 1969); see SD Const. Art. 6, § 5.

Tennessee
No statute.

Texas
No statute.

Utah
"'Libel' defined
For the purpose of this part: 'Libel' means a malicious defamation, expressed
either by printing or by signs or pictures or the like, tending to defame or
darken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive and
thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Utah Code Ann.
(2007) § 76-9-501

Libel - Elements - Classification of offense.
(1) A person is guilty of libel if he intentionally and with a malicious intent
to injure another publishes or procures to be published any libel.
(2) Libel is a class B misdemeanor." § 76-9-502

In I.M.L. v. State, 61 P.3d 1038, 1048 (Utah, 2002), the Utah Supreme Court
said: "We hold that Utah's criminal libel statute, Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-501
to -503, infringes upon a substantial amount of constitutionally protected
speech by punishing false statements regarding public figures made without
knowledge or recklessness and true statements regarding public figures. The
statute is therefore overbroad and unconstitutional." Despite this ruling the
Utah statute is still on the books.

Vermont
No statute.

Virginia
"Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any
means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper,
magazine, or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any
radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and
untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person
or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or
otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor." VA Code Ann.
§ 18.2-209. Speaking or publishing imputations of a woman's want of chastity is
also a Class 3 misdemeanor; if the defendant disproves malice, he will lessen
the penalty he will receive if convicted, but lack of malice is not a defense to
the crime. Id. at 18.2-417

Virgin Islands
The Virgin Islands has made libel a crime punishable by a fine not to exceed
$500, a year in jail, or both. VI Code Ann. tit. 14, § 59-1172 (2005).
Threatening to make libelous statement - or offering not to publish such a
statement in exchange for money or a favor - warrants a fine not to exceed
$1000, up to five years in jail, or both. Id. at 1179

"Injurious publications" are presumed to have been malicious. Id. at 1173. One
accused of libel "shall be acquitted" if it "appears to the court" that the
supposedly libelous material was "published for good motives and justifiable
ends." Id. at 1174. Guilt for libel extends to the owners, publishers, and
editors of the book, newspaper or other publication in which the libel was
printed. They may escape punishment by showing that the material was printed
without their knowledge, against their wishes and by another without authority
from them and that they objected to the material as soon as it was published.
Id. at 1176

"True and fair" reports of public proceedings are not libelous. Id. at 1177. A
communication between persons will most likely not be considered libelous if
there are reasonable grounds to suppose that there was not a malicious intent
behind the communication. Id. at 1178

Washington
Libel is a "gross misdemeanor" in Washington. Wash Rev. Code § 9.58.010 (2005).
"Publication" is defined broadly as the communication of any matter from one
person to another. Id. at 9.58.030. The editor, owner, publisher or manager of
the medium in which the libel appeared will be held guilty unless he can show
the material was published without his knowledge and against his will by one who
had no authority from him to select material for publication and that he
promptly retracted the libel "upon written request of the complainant." Id. at
9.58.040

Truth is a qualified defense; the accused libeler must also demonstrate "good
intentions and justifiable motives" or "belief in truth and fairness" of the
possibly libelous statement. Id. at 9.58.020. There are two categories of
communications which receive some protection from libel. First, unless
malicious, the report of any judicial, legislative or other public and official
proceeding is privileged. Id. at 9.58.050. Second, the presumption of malice
will not attach to the report of one person "entitled to or concerned in such
communication" to another similarly situated person. Id. at 9.58.070

Furnishing libelous information is a misdemeanor. Id. at 9.58.080. Threatening
to publish libelous information is a gross misdemeanor. Id. at 9.58.090

West Virginia
No statute.

Wisconsin
"(1) Whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a third
person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor.

(2) Defamatory matter is anything which exposes the other to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society or injury in the other's business
or occupation.

(3) This section does not apply if the defamatory matter was true and was
communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends or if the communication
was otherwise privileged.

(4) No person shall be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of
defamatory matter except upon the testimony of 2 other persons that they heard
and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty or no
contest." Wis. Stat. Ann 942.01 (2005)

"Giving false information for publication" is also a Class A Misdemeanor. Id. at
942.03

Wyoming
No statute.
richard
2008-01-25 03:34:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".

In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah’s criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm

Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.

The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison. Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.

In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Larry
2008-01-25 03:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
This is not true, Richard. You can imprison people for saying certain
things. Such as saying "give me your money or I'll kill you" to a
stranger. Can you cite one of these alleged Supreme Court rulings that
says otherwise?
Post by richard
In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah’s criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm
This ruling wasn't "today," it was from 2002. And it simply stated that
the particular statute that Utah had passed was too broad - it didn't
say there couldn't ever be a criminal libel statute.
Post by richard
Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.
All the decision does is render that one particular statute
unenforceable.
Post by richard
The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison.
No, they didn't.
Post by richard
Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.
In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Well, that's also not libelous, if it was true.

See, e.g., New York Penal Law 230.20, which states in part:

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when,
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
she:
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by
telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written
communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b)
causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means
or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or
by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a
manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no
purpose of legitimate communication; or

This has been upheld as constitutional many, many times.
richard
2008-01-25 05:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
This is not true, Richard. You can imprison people for saying certain
things. Such as saying "give me your money or I'll kill you" to a
stranger. Can you cite one of these alleged Supreme Court rulings that
says otherwise?
Uh no. The act is criminal, not the words.
I think you guys call it armed robbery?
How many cracker jacks did you need to get your degree?
Post by Larry
Post by richard
In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah’s criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm
This ruling wasn't "today," it was from 2002. And it simply stated that
the particular statute that Utah had passed was too broad - it didn't
say there couldn't ever be a criminal libel statute.
That's why included the link.
As I see it, any ruling that reflects on one law, also reflects on
other similar laws.
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.
All the decision does is render that one particular statute
unenforceable.
And any future laws written with the same intent.
Post by Larry
Post by richard
The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison.
No, they didn't.
Go back to high school dickhead. But that's why it's an amendment and
not in the body.
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.
In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Well, that's also not libelous, if it was true.
True. But none the less, the man was convicted for reporting it.
Post by Larry
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when,
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by
telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written
communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b)
causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means
or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or
by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a
manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no
purpose of legitimate communication; or
This has been upheld as constitutional many, many times.
Yes. Because it clearly defines "harassment". However, the word
"annoyance" is vague. It does not use the word "libel" as the person
would not have to libel another in order to be guilty.

Now here is one USSC case related to "criminal libel".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=195

Criminal and civil are two different matters. If you wish to punish me
for having listened to what I had to say, sue me in civil court. There
are very very few things you can say that CAN put you in jail. Those
being words which would cause panic and immediate injury.

Making a statement that a judge lives outside of the county where he
is bound by law to live is not criminal libel. That is fact. Saying
that I saw you staggering down 5th avenue at noon stone drunk, in the
snow, would not be criminal libel. Specially if I had the photos to
prove it.
If criminal libel is in fact legal, then why wasn't Geraldo Rivera
imprisoned for his libelous story on the Cal. child molestation day
care center years ago? And he WAS an attorney.
Larry
2008-01-26 03:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
This is not true, Richard. You can imprison people for saying certain
things. Such as saying "give me your money or I'll kill you" to a
stranger. Can you cite one of these alleged Supreme Court rulings that
says otherwise?
Uh no. The act is criminal, not the words.
The act of saying the words?
Post by richard
I think you guys call it armed robbery?
Only if the person is armed, and is committing a robbery. Neither fact
of which I provided above, yet the person is still guilty.
Post by richard
How many cracker jacks did you need to get your degree?
Post by Larry
Post by richard
In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah’s criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm
This ruling wasn't "today," it was from 2002. And it simply stated that
the particular statute that Utah had passed was too broad - it didn't
say there couldn't ever be a criminal libel statute.
That's why included the link.
As I see it, any ruling that reflects on one law, also reflects on
other similar laws.
Well, you see it completely wrong, then.

There are plenty of areas the government is allowed to regulate. But if
they pass as law regulating that area *and* also restricting other
areas, the law will be struck down as overbroad. This is what happened
in Utah. It doesn't mean they can't regulate the area, it just means
that law went too far.
Post by richard
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.
All the decision does is render that one particular statute
unenforceable.
And any future laws written with the same intent.
The "intent" that legislators have in passing a law is not usually
relevant, unless you have to review the legislative history.
Post by richard
Post by Larry
Post by richard
The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison.
No, they didn't.
Go back to high school dickhead. But that's why it's an amendment and
not in the body.
So the founding fathers wanted to allow me to threaten to kill people,
or post pictures of you all around town calling you untrue derogatory
names, or to stand inside a bank and say "I have a bomb, give me the
money or else"?
Post by richard
Post by Larry
Post by richard
Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.
In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Well, that's also not libelous, if it was true.
True. But none the less, the man was convicted for reporting it.
Post by Larry
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when,
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by
telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written
communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b)
causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means
or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or
by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a
manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no
purpose of legitimate communication; or
This has been upheld as constitutional many, many times.
Yes. Because it clearly defines "harassment". However, the word
"annoyance" is vague. It does not use the word "libel" as the person
would not have to libel another in order to be guilty.
So what if the word "libel" is in it or not? You say no speech can be
criminalized. This statute proves you wrong.
M.I.5Ÿ
2008-01-25 10:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is
alive,**
and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
This is not true, Richard. You can imprison people for saying certain
things. Such as saying "give me your money or I'll kill you" to a
stranger. Can you cite one of these alleged Supreme Court rulings that
says otherwise?
Post by richard
In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah's criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm
This ruling wasn't "today," it was from 2002. And it simply stated that
the particular statute that Utah had passed was too broad - it didn't
say there couldn't ever be a criminal libel statute.
Post by richard
Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.
All the decision does is render that one particular statute
unenforceable.
Post by richard
The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison.
No, they didn't.
Post by richard
Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.
In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Well, that's also not libelous, if it was true.
You are obviously unaware of diffences between US law and English law. It
would be true that the statement would not be libel if it were true - in
England. However, libel is defined a little differently in the states. In
the US, libel is a statement written with the intention of undermining the
libelled party's standing. There is no requirement for it to be untrue.
Reality_Check©
2008-01-25 05:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
Wow! I bet those in prison for criminal libel, and those carrying
the burden and disenfranchisement of a felony conviction for libel
will be glad to hear that ...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
richard
2008-01-25 05:33:10 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:14:11 -0700, "Reality_Check©"
Post by Reality_Check©
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
Wow! I bet those in prison for criminal libel, and those carrying
the burden and disenfranchisement of a felony conviction for libel
will be glad to hear that ...
And just who is in prison for it?
It may be a law, but it's one of those laws that is rarely used.
It's against the law to spit on the sidewalk. You ever heard of any
one being cited for it?
Reality_Check©
2008-01-25 05:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:14:11 -0700, "Reality_Check©"
Post by Reality_Check©
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to build
up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great depression
and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough. They stole the
farms and property of a great many American's through foreclosure
of mortgaged property by use of the artificially created
depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false, I
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly defamatory
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws are different
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory
statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty, integrity,
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is alive,** and
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
Wow! I bet those in prison for criminal libel, and those carrying
the burden and disenfranchisement of a felony conviction for libel
will be glad to hear that ...
And just who is in prison for it?
Kansas newspaper, staffers convicted of criminal libel

First Amendment proponents decry verdict; 'We typically associate criminal
defamation with authoritarian governments,' says Reporters Committee chief.
07.18.02

N.M. man sentenced for violating criminal-libel law

Attorney immediately files appeal, says conviction under seldom-used statute
violates Juan Mata's free speech. 10.19.05
Post by richard
It may be a law, but it's one of those laws that is rarely used.
It's against the law to spit on the sidewalk. You ever heard of any
one being cited for it?
Internet Libeler gets 23 years in Prison

In a highly lauded decision, a Colorado court has sentenced an internet
Libeler to more than 20 years in prison. This is a major move towards
making anyone who publishes on the web fully responsible for what they write
on web sites and blogs.

This Durango Colorado article notes that a Colorado man was sentenced to 23
years in prison for criminal libel for acts relating to defamation on the
web, for "spreading lies over the Internet":

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060408_5.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Thanatos
2008-01-25 10:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reality_Check©
Internet Libeler gets 23 years in Prison
In a highly lauded decision, a Colorado court has sentenced an internet
Libeler to more than 20 years in prison. This is a major move towards
making anyone who publishes on the web fully responsible for what they write
on web sites and blogs.
This Durango Colorado article notes that a Colorado man was sentenced to 23
years in prison for criminal libel for acts relating to defamation on the
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&
article_path=/news/06/news060408_5.htm
The guy isn't serving 20 years in prison for libel. He's serving 23
years in prison after being found guilty of 26 *different* felonies,
only one of which is criminal libel.

Perhaps you should check your reality a little more carefully, Reality
Check/Professor Joesz/Vox Populi or whatever else you call yourself.
richard
2008-01-25 16:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Reality_Check©
Internet Libeler gets 23 years in Prison
In a highly lauded decision, a Colorado court has sentenced an internet
Libeler to more than 20 years in prison. This is a major move towards
making anyone who publishes on the web fully responsible for what they write
on web sites and blogs.
This Durango Colorado article notes that a Colorado man was sentenced to 23
years in prison for criminal libel for acts relating to defamation on the
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&
article_path=/news/06/news060408_5.htm
The guy isn't serving 20 years in prison for libel. He's serving 23
years in prison after being found guilty of 26 *different* felonies,
only one of which is criminal libel.
Perhaps you should check your reality a little more carefully, Reality
Check/Professor Joesz/Vox Populi or whatever else you call yourself.
It is not clear just how many counts were "criminal libel" as the
report stated several instances. Most likely, most were. As you can
not try a person on multiple unrelated cases at the same time.

VP lives? EEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKK!
Larry
2008-01-26 03:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
Post by Thanatos
Post by Reality_Check©
Internet Libeler gets 23 years in Prison
In a highly lauded decision, a Colorado court has sentenced an internet
Libeler to more than 20 years in prison. This is a major move towards
making anyone who publishes on the web fully responsible for what they write
on web sites and blogs.
This Durango Colorado article notes that a Colorado man was sentenced to 23
years in prison for criminal libel for acts relating to defamation on the
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=ne
ws&
article_path=/news/06/news060408_5.htm
The guy isn't serving 20 years in prison for libel. He's serving 23
years in prison after being found guilty of 26 *different* felonies,
only one of which is criminal libel.
Perhaps you should check your reality a little more carefully, Reality
Check/Professor Joesz/Vox Populi or whatever else you call yourself.
It is not clear just how many counts were "criminal libel" as the
report stated several instances. Most likely, most were. As you can
not try a person on multiple unrelated cases at the same time.
Why do you say this, Richard? You certainly can. Look up the ideas of
"joinder" and "consolidation."
richard
2008-01-25 16:08:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:43:55 -0700, "Reality_Check©"
Post by Reality_Check©
This Durango Colorado article notes that a Colorado man was sentenced to 23
years in prison for criminal libel for acts relating to defamation on the
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060408_5.htm
Thanks for that link. I know a person who might not like the idea.
Thanatos
2008-01-25 10:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the honesty,
integrity, virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects
of one who is alive,** and thereby to expose him to public hatred,
contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was
true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead
and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
Especially the part about even truth not being a defense to "blackening
the memory" of a dead person or exposing the "natural defects" of the
living.

The idea that you can be imprisoned for truthfully describing, for
example, that someone was a slave owner is repugnant to 200+ years of
1st Amendment jurisprudence.
Deadrat
2008-01-25 17:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:19 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough.
They stole the farms and property of a great many American's
through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use of the
artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false,
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly
defamatory statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal
libel laws are different in that they allow the state to fine or
imprison speakers of defamatory statements. Seventeen states
currently have criminal libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by
written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or
object tending to **blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to
impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or **expose the
natural defects of one who is alive,** and thereby to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true,
except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels
tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Now look up the US Supreme Court rulings on "Criminal Libel".
You'll soon find that ALL "criminal libel" laws are ILLEGAL!
As you "can not imprison a person for what he has to say".
I believe this not to be true. Could you cite the case?
Post by richard
In a unanimous decision, the Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling today
that states that Utah’s criminal libel statute "infringes upon a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech" and is
"therefore overbroad and unconstitutional."
http://www.acluutah.org/pr111502.htm
Excellent! These laws are an abomination.
Post by richard
Although the laws may still be on the books, they are not enforcable
due to Supreme Court rulings.
For public figures, I think the court ruled that conviction requires
actual malice.
Post by richard
The founding fathers of the USA wrote the "First Amendment" to
guarantee that people could say what they needed to without the fear
of being put in prison. Criminal libel laws totally undermine that
effort. Those laws were written to protect those people in an arena of
power could remain in that arena and have a tool to persecute those
who dare to challenge them.
While this is true, the founding fathers wrote the 1st to apply only to
the fedeal government. Things have changed since then, but I believe
that criminal libel laws are still (barely) breathing. Although the
obvious abuse comes from public officials using these laws to silence
critics, there have been some attempts to use them to prosecute
vituperous posters in cyberwars of words.
Post by richard
In one such case in Ky, a reporter was convicted of "criminal libel"
simply for reporting that a judge lived illegally outside of the
county as required by law.
No sir. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
I agree, but Colorado has such a law and recently brought prosecution
under it. These things aren't quite dead, unfortunately.
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-25 18:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
s.co
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough.
They stole the farms and property of a great many American's
through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use of the
artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false,
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a
defamation suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead
famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly
defama
tory
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws
are dif
ferent
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of
defamatory statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal
libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by
writte
n
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object
tending t
o
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the
honesty, inte
grity,
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who is
alive,
** and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
commits cri
minal
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was
true, exce
pt
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending
to exp
ose
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Criminal-libel statutes, state by state
Compiled by Bill Kenworthy
and Beth Chesterman
First Amendment Center Online
08.10.06
Alabama
"Libel tending to provoke breach of peace.
Any person who publishes a libel of another which may tend to
provoke a br
each
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
of the peace shall be punished, on conviction, by fine and
imprisonment in
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
county jail, or hard labor for the county; the fine not to exceed in
any c
ase
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
$500.00 and the imprisonment or hard labor not to exceed six
months."
Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-160
Alaska
No statute.
Arizona
No statute.
Arkansas
Arkansas repealed its criminal libel statute in 2005.
California
No statute.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by
writte
n
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object
tending t
o
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty,
integrit
y,
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is
alive, a
nd
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
commits cri
minal
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was
true, exce
pt
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending
to exp
ose
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not
require
d to
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the
substance o
f the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado
statute to
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
extent that it criminalized statements made by one private
individual abou
t
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
another private individual. The court also held that "actual malice"
need
not be
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
proved in cases between two private individuals.
Connecticut
No statute.
Delaware
No statute.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia repealed its criminal libel statute in 2001.
Florida
1.. Any individual who publishes a libel is guilty of a
first-degree misdemeanor. Fla. Stat. § 836.01 (2005). Additionally,
when the libel is
anonymous or pseudonymous, the editor, owner, manager and/or
publisher of
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
publication in which the libel appeared may also be guilty. Id. at 836.03.
2.. Anyone who merely transmits libelous information to a newspaper
is
guilty
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
of a second-degree misdemeanor. Id. at 836.09.
3.. Libeling a bank or financial institution is a first-degree
misdeme
anor.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Id. at 836.06.
4.. Publishing a potentially libelous claim against an individual
with
out
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
giving that individual's full name is a first-degree misdemeanor.
Id. at 8
36.02.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
5.. Attempting to extort a benefit from someone by threatening to
publ
ish a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel concerning him or her is a second-degree felony. Id. 836.05
State v. Chase, 94 Fla. 1071 (1927), held that a prosecution for
criminal-
libel
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
must establish malice and that truth is a defense to a libel charge
when t
hat
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
charge relates to materials published about a public official.
Before a criminal-libel statute can be enforced, it must pass
Florida's procedural requirements. Prosecutors are required to
notify a publication
within
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
five days of when it is accused of libel. Id. at 836.07. Once
notified, if
a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
publication can establish it printed the potentially libelous
material in
good
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
faith, it has anywhere from ten to forty-five days to publish a
correction
and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
retraction depending on how frequently it is published. If a
correction is
published, the charges will not go forward. Id. at 836.08.
Georgia
"(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when,
without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another,
living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken
the memory of one who is
dead
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
and wh
ich
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
tends to provoke a breach of the peace.
(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is
guilty of
a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
misdemeanor."
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).
Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd 401 U.S.
985, hel
d that
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so
long as
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However,
Williamson v
.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially
unconstitut
ional
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
because the language "tends to provoke a breach of peace" is vague
and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not
been revised
and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
remains on the books.
Hawaii
No statute.
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code §
18-4801
(2005).
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
"Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another,
publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by
fine n
ot
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6)
months." Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
"An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no
justifi
able
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
motive for making it is shown." Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the
libel. Id.
at
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is
liable
. Id.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
at 18-4806.
"True and fair" reports of public proceedings are not libelous,
except upo
n a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Libelous remarks or comments in relation to "true and fair" reports
receiv
e no
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
protection. Id. at 18-4808.
It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their
family m
ember
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.
Illinois
Illinois law makes it a misdemeanor to defame or libel a bank or
other fin
ancial
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
institution with the intent to damage its solvency; truth is an
absolute defense. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 300/1 (2005).
Indiana
No statute.
Iowa
Iowa has no criminal-libel statute, but the case Park v. Hill, 380
F. Supp
. 2d
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
1002 (N.D. Iowa 2005), holds that Iowa law defines libel as
"malicious publication, expressed either in printing or in writing,
or by signs and pictures, tending to injure the reputation of
another person or to expose
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure the
person in
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
maintenance of the person's business." Id. at 1015. Moreover, Art.
1, §
7 of the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Iowa Constitution provides that truth shall be a defense in all
criminal-l
ibel
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
actions.
State v. Heacock, 76 N.W. 654 (Iowa 1898), establishes that criminal
prosecutions for libel have occurred in Iowa. It does not give the
element
s for
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
criminal libel in the state, but the indictment in the case charges
"that
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
article was maliciously and willfully inserted in the [newspaper] by
the defendant, and that it was willfully and maliciously circulated
and distri
buted
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
by him, 'for the purpose of defaming, injuring, and vilifying the
person a
nd
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
character of [the libeled individual] and others, and the same
tended to p
rovoke
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the said [libeled individual] and others to wrath, and to expose
them to p
ublic
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
hatred, contempt, and
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
Oops, Prof Jones, another one of Deadrats legal theories bites the
dust. Thanks for the input!
Did you miss the part about private individuals not being able to
avail themselves of criminal libel statutes? The Bush family cannot
bring criminal prosecutions.
Bwahaha ... hhehhehehahhehehahahohoheoheehehehahhahohhihihaiheiahe
heihiaheiahihaihaihaaaaaaaaaaheihihi<cough>hahaaaahieheiaiiiiiiiiiiiahai!


Good one!

Hay ratas muertos quedan en Guantanamo ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-26 01:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't
enough. They stole the farms and property of a great many
American's through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use
of the artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly
be baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a
defamation suit may be brought against someone who slanders a
dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of
allegedly defama
tory
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws
are dif
ferent
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
in that they allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of
defamatory statements. Seventeen states currently have criminal
libel laws.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either
by writte
n
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object
tending t
o
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
**blacken the memory of one who is dead,** or to impeach the
honesty, inte
grity,
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
virtue, or reputation or **expose the natural defects of one who
is alive,
** and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
commits cri
minal
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was
true, exce
pt
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels
tending to exp
ose
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Criminal-libel statutes, state by state
Compiled by Bill Kenworthy
and Beth Chesterman
First Amendment Center Online
08.10.06
Alabama
"Libel tending to provoke breach of peace.
Any person who publishes a libel of another which may tend to
provoke a br
each
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
of the peace shall be punished, on conviction, by fine and
imprisonment in
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
county jail, or hard labor for the county; the fine not to exceed
in any c
ase
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
$500.00 and the imprisonment or hard labor not to exceed six months."
Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-160
Alaska
No statute.
Arizona
No statute.
Arkansas
Arkansas repealed its criminal libel statute in 2005.
California
No statute.
Colorado
"(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either
by writte
n
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object
tending t
o
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty,
integrit
y,
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is
alive, a
nd
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
commits cri
minal
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was
true, exce
pt
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels
tending to exp
ose
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony."
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not
require
d to
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the
substance o
f the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado
statute to
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
extent that it criminalized statements made by one private
individual abou
t
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
another private individual. The court also held that "actual
malice" need
not be
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
proved in cases between two private individuals.
Connecticut
No statute.
Delaware
No statute.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia repealed its criminal libel statute in 2001.
Florida
1.. Any individual who publishes a libel is guilty of a
first-degree misdemeanor. Fla. Stat. § 836.01 (2005).
Additionally, when the libel is
anonymous or pseudonymous, the editor, owner, manager and/or
publisher of
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
publication in which the libel appeared may also be guilty. Id. at 836.03.
2.. Anyone who merely transmits libelous information to a
newspaper is
guilty
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
of a second-degree misdemeanor. Id. at 836.09.
3.. Libeling a bank or financial institution is a first-degree
misdeme
anor.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Id. at 836.06.
4.. Publishing a potentially libelous claim against an individual
with
out
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
giving that individual's full name is a first-degree misdemeanor.
Id. at 8
36.02.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
5.. Attempting to extort a benefit from someone by threatening to
publ
ish a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
libel concerning him or her is a second-degree felony. Id. 836.05
State v. Chase, 94 Fla. 1071 (1927), held that a prosecution for
criminal-
libel
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
must establish malice and that truth is a defense to a libel
charge when t
hat
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
charge relates to materials published about a public official.
Before a criminal-libel statute can be enforced, it must pass
Florida's procedural requirements. Prosecutors are required to
notify a publication
within
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
five days of when it is accused of libel. Id. at 836.07. Once
notified, if
a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
publication can establish it printed the potentially libelous
material in
good
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
faith, it has anywhere from ten to forty-five days to publish a
correction
and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
retraction depending on how frequently it is published. If a correction is
published, the charges will not go forward. Id. at 836.08.
Georgia
"(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when,
without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another,
living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to
blacken the memory of one who is
dead
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or
ridicule, and wh
ich
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
tends to provoke a breach of the peace.
(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is
guilty of
a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
misdemeanor."
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).
Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff'd 401 U.S.
985, hel
d that
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so
long as
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However,
Williamson v
.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially
unconstitut
ional
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
because the language "tends to provoke a breach of peace" is vague
and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not
been revised
and
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
remains on the books.
Hawaii
No statute.
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code §
18-4801
(2005).
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
"Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another,
publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable
by fine n
ot
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6)
months." Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
"An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no
justifi
able
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
motive for making it is shown." Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the
libel. Id.
at
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material
is liable
. Id.
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
at 18-4806.
"True and fair" reports of public proceedings are not libelous,
except upo
n a
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Libelous remarks or comments in relation to "true and fair"
reports receiv
e no
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
protection. Id. at 18-4808.
It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their
family m
ember
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.
Illinois
Illinois law makes it a misdemeanor to defame or libel a bank or
other fin
ancial
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
institution with the intent to damage its solvency; truth is an
absolute defense. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 300/1 (2005).
Indiana
No statute.
Iowa
Iowa has no criminal-libel statute, but the case Park v. Hill, 380
F. Supp
. 2d
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
1002 (N.D. Iowa 2005), holds that Iowa law defines libel as
"malicious publication, expressed either in printing or in
writing, or by signs and pictures, tending to injure the
reputation of another person or to expose
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure the
person in
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
maintenance of the person's business." Id. at 1015. Moreover, Art.
1, §
7 of the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Iowa Constitution provides that truth shall be a defense in all
criminal-l
ibel
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
actions.
State v. Heacock, 76 N.W. 654 (Iowa 1898), establishes that
criminal prosecutions for libel have occurred in Iowa. It does not
give the element
s for
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
criminal libel in the state, but the indictment in the case
charges "that
the
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
article was maliciously and willfully inserted in the [newspaper]
by the defendant, and that it was willfully and maliciously
circulated and distri
buted
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
by him, 'for the purpose of defaming, injuring, and vilifying the
person a
nd
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
character of [the libeled individual] and others, and the same
tended to p
rovoke
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
the said [libeled individual] and others to wrath, and to expose
them to p
ublic
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
hatred, contempt, and
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
Oops, Prof Jones, another one of Deadrats legal theories bites the
dust. Thanks for the input!
Did you miss the part about private individuals not being able to
avail themselves of criminal libel statutes? The Bush family cannot
bring criminal prosecutions.
Bwahaha ... hhehhehehahhehehahahohoheoheehehehahhahohhihihaiheiahe
heihiaheiahihaihaihaaaaaaaaaaheihihi<cough>hahaaaahieheiaiiiiiiiiiiiah
ai!
Good one!
Hay ratas muertos quedan en Guantanamo ?
OK, let me in on the joke.
Is this funny because the Bush *administration* has not brought proper
prosecutions against the internees at Gurantanamo? Or because they
have brought improper ones?
Sí. ¡Muy chistoso!
Is this funny because W is in charge of bringing prosecutions in the
name of United States? But criminal libel laws are all state
statutes.
¡Eso es también hilarante!
I'll admit that I'm one of the few who do enjoy some of your
idiosyncratic humor, but I'm missing the punchline here.
El humor mexicano no tiene remate.
The OP wanted to know why the Bush familiy hadn't brought a defamation
suit on behalf of a deceased patriarch of the family. They can't do
that in civil court, and they have no authority to bring a criminal
action.
What am I missing?
Ud. perdió Alberto Gonzales mientras él fue el títere de George Bush.
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-25 18:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough.
They stole the farms and property of a great many American's
through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use of the
artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are false,
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a defamation
suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly
defamatory statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal
libel laws are different in that they allow the state to fine or
imprison speakers of defamatory statements. Seventeen states
currently have criminal libel laws.
The question was why the Bush familiy hasn't brought suit. They can't
bring criminal actions.
ROTFLMAO!

Stop it, your killing me .... bwhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who
was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration
arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to
proceed.

Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in Europe and
held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of mistaken identity.

The lower courts dismissed his suit after the administration asserted that state
secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit were not blocked. The justices rejected
his appeal without comment.
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-26 01:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't enough.
They stole the farms and property of a great many American's
through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use of the
artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly be
baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in anxious
anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a
defamation suit may be brought against someone who slanders a dead
famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of allegedly
defamatory statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal
libel laws are different in that they allow the state to fine or
imprison speakers of defamatory statements. Seventeen states
currently have criminal libel laws.
The question was why the Bush familiy hasn't brought suit. They
can't bring criminal actions.
ROTFLMAO!
Stop it, your killing me .... bwhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a
man who was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing
Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if
the case were allowed to proceed.
Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in
Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of
mistaken identity.
The lower courts dismissed his suit after the administration asserted
that state secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit were not blocked.
The justices rejected his appeal without comment.
OK, people cannot bring suits against the Unites States because they
were tortured. Why does that mean that Jeb Bush, for instance, could
bring a criminal action for libel against an author?
Is torture a criminal action ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
2008-01-26 05:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
innews:70a8d653-e656-49bf-b312-ffe5dd909458
news:be001a1d-3200-4276-
The
Unauthorized
Biography
<snipped: possible copyright violations>
Now, we have already seen from Senator Mcfadden's speech to
Congress preserved in the Congressional Record the Federal
Reserve's role in transferring America's gold to Germany to
build up Hitler while they simultaneously created the great
depression and bankrupted this nation. And that wasn't
enough. They stole the farms and property of a great many
American's through foreclosure of mortgaged property by use
of the artificially created depression.
I have already posted links explaining this in great detail.
If the facts given in the fully referenced book here are
Why then, has the Bush family dynasty failed to contest the
falsity by a lawsuit in a court of law that would certainly
be baised in their favor?
Deadrat?
*crickets chirping loudly now, fiddling their toes in
anxious anticipation*
;)
1. Prescott Bush died over 35 years ago. Any claims for his
defamation died with him.
No comment on this one then?
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe I saw somewhere that a
defamation suit may be brought against someone who slanders a
dead famous person.
All 50 states have civil libel laws that allow victims of
allegedly defamatory statements to seek compensation from
speakers. Criminal libel laws are different in that they allow
the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory statements.
Seventeen states currently have criminal libel laws.
The question was why the Bush familiy hasn't brought suit. They
can't bring criminal actions.
ROTFLMAO!
Stop it, your killing me .... bwhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit
from a man who was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively
endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would
be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.
Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in
Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of
mistaken identity.
The lower courts dismissed his suit after the administration
asserted that state secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit were
not blocked. The justices rejected his appeal without comment.
OK, people cannot bring suits against the Unites States because they
were tortured. Why does that mean that Jeb Bush, for instance,
could bring a criminal action for libel against an author?
Is torture a criminal action ?
Torture is a criminal act, not a law suit.
The 1000s of victims of U$ torture will be relieved to hear that ...
Loading...