Apropos Not Much

I’m kind of a nut, sometimes.

I mean that in a benign way.  My occasional little bout of unusualness usually expresses itself in very, very benign ways.  I sing in the car.  I make up languages, and then talk to myself in them (don’t judge).

And I sometimes decide, out of the clear, blue sky, to focus on subjects that one might not expect a guy to focus on for any rational reason.

A good example – I once spent three months reading about the German invasion of Poland – from large-scale histories down to very micro-level accounts by Polish soldiers and civilians.  This in the days before the Internet, mind you.  Another week back in high school, it was learning how to improvise explosives (Note to Janet Napolitano:  It was entirely academic).  In my mid-twenties, it was Asian cooking. And it’s covered many other topics, too – as you may be able to tell from this blog’s rather peripatetic range of subjects.


I sat bolt updright in bed the other day, and thought “wouldn’t it be fun to explain Minnesota law as regards defamation?”

Seriously – that’s the only reason I’m doing this – pure unvarnished serendipity!

It didn’t take much digging to get down to the crux of the gist; defamation (traditionally broken into “Libel”, or written/printed defamation, and “slander”, or spoken defamation, although those categories are largely vestigial holdovers from English common law, where the printing press and the spoken word were pretty much the extent of mass communication, although the lines are blurring rapidly today) is when someone says, writes, or otherwise transmits…:

  • …something that is defamatory – in other words, that has a reasonable chance of damaging the subject’s livelihood or reputation (where “reasonable” means “would convince a jury”)…
  • …to one or more third parties – meaning that someone besides the target has to hear it.  The communication in question must be…
  • untrue, as in “there is no truth to it”.
  • And if the target of the statement is a “public figure”, the target needs to prove the person making the statement acted out of malice.

Seems pretty clear-cut, right?  I mean, here’s Minnesota’s “Criminal Defamation” statute, which covers most of the same sorts of things.

Well, no.  It’s not.  There is all sorts of case law on the subject – all the little crossed fingers behind the metaphorical back that the legal system churns out to make sure only lawyers can really follow the law without some major effort.

And some of those crossed fingers are a good thing.  Otherwise, you could have a situation like in the UK, where defamation is frightfully easy to prove, to the point where it genuinely chills freedom of speech, and always has – which is one major reason why American jurisprudence has legitimately tried to make proving defamation a much harder hill to climb.

So over the course of this week, we’ll look at some of the wrinkles to defamation law.

Apropos, again, nothing but my own schizoid whim.

15 thoughts on “Apropos Not Much

  1. Peripatetic? I think “roaming” or “roving” would be more accurate. But then, I’m not an English major. I simply play one in blog comment sections.

  2. Interesting post, Mitch, see, the leftybloggers we right when they say you teh crazie.

    Sure, and here is some more chum for the moon-bat left:
    “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?”‘ Bachmann said at a campaign event in Sarasota, Florida on Sunday.

    Here, doggie doggie doggie…

  3. Mitch-
    can you start with the Dan Rather ‘fake but accurate’ defense in case law? It would tie in nicely with your series on the invasion of Poland, which began with ‘fake but accurate’ claims of attacks on Germans by the Poles, and were the cover story for the invasion.

  4. There’s always the claim that we are spending billions bombing Libya for “humanitarian reasons”. Gotta love that “Hope & Change” (R)

  5. pure unvarnished serendipity??

    LOL, I withhold comment pending the resolution of that which much surely follow.

    And seriously, why is there never a fresh tub of popcorn around here to munch on while I watch???

  6. If I was you, Mitch, I would give up blogging, move twenty or thirty miles east and enter the field of Wisconsin politics. You need relief from bitterness and acrimony.

  7. “I make up languages, and then talk to myself in them”

    Waaait a minute, Mitch! I thought that I was the only one that did this. But then, when I was a kid, I used to make up the words to hymns in church if I didn’t know them, only to receive death ray stares from my mom!

  8. Ngghuu yahnah beatificant sioulsy. Lakha troubadore nehigh.
    Mitch, Klatuu, barada niktu.

    I will now go practice my Klingon.

  9. Nybash, latan. Makban. Iwangap mak!

    what only 3 vowels in your new language? – isn’t that limiting? Where’s E?

  10. Pingback: Apropos Not Much, Part II | Shot in the Dark

  11. Pingback: Apropos Not Much, Part III | Shot in the Dark

  12. Pingback: One Day In Downtown Saint Paul | Shot in the Dark

  13. Pingback: Play Misty For Me, Part II: No There There | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.