Kansans can still be jailed for speech

The recent dismissal of a federal lawsuit stemming from a Baxter Springs criminal defamation case presents another opportunity to state what should be the obvious: The Legislature needs to repeal this appalling law and let libel cases play out in civil court, where they belong in a civil society. It’s wrong for somebody to knowingly spread false information, of course. But the proper remedy is civil action that can lead to a monetary damages award. Kansas’ criminal libel law, which carries fines and up to a year in jail, is the stuff of despotic Third World countries.
Attorney General Phill Kline has said the law should go, as have legal scholars across the nation. How can legislators do nothing as a law that criminalizes free speech not only sits on the books but continues to be used by prosecutors?
Posted by Rhonda Holman

16 Comments

  1. Joe Blow
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    You can’t whine about criminalizing free speech AND be for McCain/Feingold which makes it illegal to mention a candidates name within 60 days of an election. One or the other, make your pick.

  2. Ed Friedemann
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Current KBOE. No making any sound, period { or writing anything either }.

  3. Ian Santiago
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    The hypocrites at the Eagle should shut up about free speech! lol

  4. Rage
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    We’re looking at open attempts to undo the New Deal, undo 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, and now we’re looking at a return of the John Peter Zenger trial. ?erutcip siht htiw gnorw s’tahW

  5. XXX
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    And here’s a little something for you trolls.

    “Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

    It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.”http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=newsGet ready……

  6. RD
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    XXX, will that in any way diminish the amount of email spam? If so, what will happen to all these “employed” conservatives?

  7. Galahad
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    OMG, XXX, that’s wild!

    Just think of how those sullen looking swift boat guys would have gotten squashed with this law . . .

  8. Galahad
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Hey, Esod and B.A.–

    Your president is gunning for you, boys.

    Better keep your heads down.

  9. NoJoCo
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    You might heed your own advice: Antares, Proud Liberal, PL, Galahad, Wayreth, etc

    you too:

    XXX, Snidley Whiplash.

  10. John Q
    Posted January 9, 2006 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    No freedom in Kansas?

    Why are we fighting for freedom in Iraq?

    Is Kansas not worth fighting for?

  11. XXX
    Posted January 10, 2006 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    I wouldn’t get real excited about the new law yet. There’s already laws on the books about spamming, and I don’t know about you, but I still get spam. As for being “annoying”, how are they going to enforce a thing like that? Who sets the standard for what’s annoying?

    “The First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

    It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.”

    So who on this site will be the first to bring charges? Guess what? You’re not really anonomous. Every poster on this site can be tracked back to their IP address even if you don’t give a legit e-mail address. Every computer has it’s own unique signature. If they want you, they can find you.

    Uh, NoJo, you don’t post under your real name either….hipocrite.

    And you’re annoying me.

  12. PL
    Posted January 10, 2006 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Heh, good points, XXX.

    Since most of what I hear the President say is “annoying” in its stupidity, do I have the right to file criminal charges?

    As for NoJo, have you noticed he hasn’t done anything but cheap-shot people for about six months?

    Why don’t you read something so you have some ideas worth posting–I’d start with “Freakanomics” by Levitt, “The Truth with Jokes” by Al Franken, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” by Chris Hedges.

    You might also try reading some good columinists and magazines, Paul Krugman in “The NYTimes”, “Harpers”, and “The Progressive Populist” out of Storm City, IA.

    Lord knows you only get the “conventional wisdom” with a heavy dollop of Cal Thomas from our local paper.

  13. PL
    Posted January 10, 2006 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    For clarification, I ALSO cheap-shot people, but that’s not ALL I DO . . .

  14. XXX
    Posted January 10, 2006 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    PL, you can’t file charges against the president because he’s above the law.

    Some of the conservatives on this site have things to say worth listening to. Unfortunately, NoJo isn’t one of them.

  15. Steven E.
    Posted January 10, 2006 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    I would second the recommendation for “Freakonomics” by Levitt & Dubner. They demonstrated wizardry with multiple regression and showed that you can learn a lot about people when you “follow the money”.

    It was a fascinating piece of work.

  16. Ed Friedemann
    Posted January 11, 2006 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    That G-d constitution, as Bush likes to call it, allows him to lie. He ought show a little more respect.

    Talk about lying: Count em’http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111-7.html