1
The truth recently discovered
What is the set of defamation-based laws designed to do? What are these laws protecting? In what kinds of cases does the state feel the need to play a part? The laws that employ the âdefamation principleââlaws involving insult, slander, and libelâare peculiar legally because they do not address the question of truth at all. They are crimes primarily of words adjudged by their potential effect, and according to the motives of their authors. There is no evidence in the normal sense of the word, no issue of alibis, material evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, or mitigating circumstances. There are but the words, and the suspected intention. If the crime of defamation succeeds, it succeeds in the minds of those who heard or read the scurrilous words.
First and foremost this class of crimes is only secondarily (or sometimes never) concerned with the truth of the words. Defamation is a crime designed primarily to protect reputationsâof individuals, collective entities, companies, governments, national symbols, institutions; defamation is not designed to produce the truth.
In historical terms, societyâs acquaintance with truth in cases of defamation has been relatively recent. It is worth noting that it was only possibly in the 1735 John Peter Zenger trial that truth was allowed as a defense in libel suits. Zenger, a journal publisher in the British colony of New York, had published the following sentiment:1
For these words, Zenger was tried for âbeing a seditious person; and a frequent printer and publisher of false news and seditious libels, both wickedly and maliciously devisingâ of the Governor of New York, whom he aimed âto traduce, scandalize, and vilify.â Zenger brought âinto suspicion and the ill opinion of the subjects of the king residing within the Provinceâ the Governor and all members of his administration. Specifically, on the 28th of January, Zenger âdid falsely, seditiously, and scandalously print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain false, malicious, seditious, scandalous libel entitled The New York Weekly Journal.â
At the time, the common (and only?) defense was to deny responsibility in publishing the alleged libel. So it was with great surprise that Zengerâs lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, freely admitted that his client had in fact published the libel, but added that he saw no reason âto deny the publication of a complaint, which I think is the right of every freeborn subject to make when the matters so published can be supported with truth.â
With confession in hand, the prosecutor proclaimed:
But Hamilton countered with a revolutionary suggestion: if his client is to be found guilty, it must be demonstrated that âthe words themselvesâ were âlibelous that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty.â Therefore, Hamilton argued, he and his client would âprove those very papers that are called libels to be true.â The Chief Justice protested, âYou cannot be admitted, Mr. Hamilton, to give the truth of a libel in evidence. A libel is not to be justified; for it is nevertheless a libel that it is true.â Why is it in cases of libel, Hamilton then asked, that truth could not be brought before the court? For all other crimes, such as murder or assault, it is. He knew, of course, that âit is said that truth makes a libel the more provoking.â Why, he wondered, would a libel that is closer to the truth be punished more harshly than a libel that is a falsehood? How could the truth bring even greater punishment?
The Chief Justice read aloud from a law book:
Hamilton asked the jury to take note that âwe are denied the liberty of giving evidence to prove the truth of what we have publishedâ and that âthe suppressing of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence.â
From our modern perspective, everything seems counterintuitive: the truer Zengerâs allegation, the greater the crime and the greater zeal to suppress such truth. As we shall discover in this volume, as with most defamation cases, the focus always comes to rest on intention and potential effect. Hamilton asked what exactly was the âstandard ruleâ in determining malice or a breach of the peace? Who is to say if the words in question are defamatory? Or that they âtend to the breach of the peaceâ? The prosecutor consulted a law text for the answer: it is libellous if a scandal âis expressed in a scoffing and ironical manner,â in a way that âis expressed in direct terms.â Concluded the prosecutor, âI think nothing can be plainer or more full than these words.â Hamilton argued that there âstill occurs some uncertainty,â to wit, âwhat words are scandalous, and what are not,â for the prosecutor has contended that the words in question âmay be scandalous, whether true or false.â When coming to intentions, Hamilton asked,
The Chief Justice chided Hamilton, âDo you think it so hard to know when words are ironical or spoken in a scoffing manner?â Hamilton answered, âI insist that the only rule by which to know is â as I do or can understand them. I have no other rule to go by but as I understand them.â As such, continued Hamilton,
The Chief Justice countered:
Zengerâs trial was less than a century after the abolition of the Star Chamber, the special court of the English kings notorious for its swift, arbitrary, and sometimes horrific punishments. âIt is true in times past it was a crime to speak truth,â said Hamilton and quoted the phrase that âthe practice of informations for libels is a sword in the hands of a wicked kingâ (original emphasis).2 Now, Hamilton argued in his final statement to the jury, âTruth ought to govern the whole affair of libels.â He called to the conscience of the jury to make the right decision, so that all people
Despite the Chief Justiceâs strong recommendation to the contrary, the jury decided in favor of Zenger and a new principle entered the world of the printed word: the truth can be told. In this long-ago trial, all of the dynamics that characterize defamation cases today were apparent: the degree to which the truth may be registered, the difficulty of reading the minds of people and discerning intention, the ever shifting sands of words and their meanings.
In the newly independent United States, it did not take long for measures to muzzle the press and suppress the freedom of expression to appear. Section 2 under of the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 must be one of the most outstanding expressions of a wide-reaching defamation measure:
However, Section 3 did allow an exemption:
In November of 1907, Abdul Hamid, the Sultan of Turkey, used an increasingly popular legal device to silence foreign critics. He instructed his ambassador to France to bring a lĂšse-majestĂ© suit against the editor of La Revue, essentially libel of His Majesty. A few years prior, the newspaper had accused the Sultan, among other things, of being âresponsible for the assassination of about 300,000 Armenians.â Such a libel, the Sultan had calculated, should be worth 500,000 francs in damages. The editor of La Revue, M. Jean Finot, would, before a jury in Seine, have to âshow cause why he should not apologizeâ to the Sultan. M. Finot had earlier heaped further abuse, claiming that âit is materially impossible to offend a personage such as the Sultan.â Witnesses summoned to testify included Emperor Wilhelm of Germany, a wide assortment of ambassadors and government ministers, and even the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau.4 Eight years after initiating the suit, Turkey killed hundreds of thousands more Armenians.
Nearly a century after the Sultan sued for lĂšse-majestĂ©, in early 2005, the Turkish writer, Orhan Pamuk, said in an interview that Turkey had killed 30,000 Kurds and 1,000,000 Armenians. The truth had to come out and Turkey had to face its own history, said Pamuk, telling the BBC that, âWhat happened to the Ottoman Armenians in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation; it was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past.â5 A lawyer, Kemal Kerinçsiz, filed a complaint with the police, and, obligingly it seems, the Turkish government introduced a new penal code provision, Article 301, which read:
1 A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
4 Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.6
The government then retroactively charged Pamuk for violation of Article 301 and for apparently insulting the armed forces of Turkey. A number of other writers were charged for violating Article 301 as well. In January 2006, the case against Pamuk was dismissed for technical reasons. Kerinçsiz was not satisfied, saying, âOrhan Pamuk must be punished for insulting Turkey and Turkishness, it is a grave crime and it should not be left unpunished.â Later the same year, a Turkish-Armenian journalist was found guilty of Article 301, and then assassinated. Unable to persuade the court, apparently Kerinçsiz turned to other measures. He was arrested in early 2008 for being part of an ultranationalist group that allegedly planned to assassinate various public figures, including Pamuk.7
The lawâs wording, though, was legally nebulous. Admitted a Turkish government minister later, there were âcertain problemsâ with the article. The government amended the law, changing âTurkishnessâ to âTurkish nation,â reducing the maximum punishment to two years, and, requiring the Ministry of Justice to grant permission before a case could be filed.8 This amendment was due in part to pressure from the European Union, to which Turkey had applied for membership. Some citizens of Turkey quite rightly challenged the hypocrisy of the EU by pointing out that many members had laws similar to Article 301. Germanyâs Section 90 punishes âDisparagement of the State and its Symbolsâ with up to three yearsâ imprisonment. Article 292 of the Italian law...