X-Message-Number: 22380 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:16:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: libel To James Swayze: With all due respect, the legal staff retained by newspapers and magazines probably know more about libel law than you do. I have dealt with these attorneys from time to time, as a writer, over the years. They are on retainer to pre-empt any possible libel suit. Consequently, unlike many attorneys, they are highly motivated to _avoid_ law suits. When you read a sentence such as "From the published reports in Sports Illustrated, one gets the impression that the people at Alcor are..." [fill in the blank] the writer is stating that another publication is his source, and he "gets an impression" from it; he is not stating a fact. He is open, in theory, to changing his opinion. Consequently this statement is contrived to avoid being libelous. It is possible that Sports Illustrated made a couple of slips in their coverage, but it is also evident that they were quite careful. I am not saying who is right, who is wrong, and how this will play out. I believe some mistakes were made which may prove a fertile ground for law suits. But libel law is not as simple as you may conclude from reading a dictionary definition. It is worth noting that successful suits for libel, in the United States, are extremely rare. --Charles Platt (Who once sat through a four-week libel trial of a writer whose defamatory statement consisted of referring to another writer as "crazy.") Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22380