Ky. man, New Saxon, Free Speech, Obama
Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies,
federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds
of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and
slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other
forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they
are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded
as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g.,
fighting words that cause a breach of the peace or false statements
that cause general panic).
more
From US Code: Title 18,871 – Threats against the President and Successors to the Presidency:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter
carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document
containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict
bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-
elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of
succession to the office of President of the United States, or the
Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes
any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as
used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent
successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice
President,
More
While freedom of the press remains strong in the U.S., where it is
guaranteed in the Constitution, it is under fire in other parts of the
world. In recent opinion columns, both the Wall Street Journal and the
New York Times have sounded alarms over several fronts that threaten a
free press globally.
Subjects of negative stories may forgo a
lawsuit in the U.S., figuring American protections set the bar too high
for plaintiffs, and instead file a lawsuit in Britain. In the U.S., the
subject would have to prove that the book or article was false,
defamatory and recklessly reported; under British law the burden of
proof is on the author to prove that the reporting is true.
Result: Important stories may not get reported and written. Exhibit
1 is the work of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book in 2003 alleging
that a prominent Saudi businessman financed Islamic terrorism. The book
was published in the United States and not widely available elsewhere,
This sort of “libel tourism” is a not just a threat to the livelihood
of writers. It threatens important investigation that only a free press
can do.
“The Web means publishing anywhere means publishing everywhere, thus
subjecting authors and publishers to litigation in pro-plaintiff
jurisdictions,” Crovitz wrote. “Exposes that meet U.S. standards for
fairness and accuracy may not get published anywhere for fear of
litigation.” The Internet has the power and reach to expand freedom by making sure
people around the world have information about what their country and
other countries are doing. We should at least do our part in the U.S.
by making sure that material published here is protected from lawsuits
brought in overseas courts.
More