Freedom-loving people everywhere should be appalled that an Egyptian blogger was sentenced to four years in prison this week for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But freedom-loving Kansans should bear in mind that Kansas has its own criminal defamation law, complete with jail time and fines. Worse, lawmakers are happy not only to keep the obsolete law on the books but also defend it from time to time. “It is still ironic that the U.S. Department of State encourages countries around the world to do away with criminal defamation laws, but here in Kansas we still have one,” Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, told The Eagle editorial board this week. For the record: Civil court, not criminal court, is the proper place to fight it out over free speech.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
9 Comments
I believe the rule of thumb is, it is not defamatory if it is true then it just becomes a question as to what it the truth. Everyday on this blog someone is calling someone else a shill or anti-soldier liberal among other such charges. But it is the intent and not the name that should be the deciding factor. I believe there should be laws against intentional deformation, but it should go beyond simple criticism of a person actions.To call someone a “No good, dog kicking, horse thief” should only be illegal if the person is in the business of caring for dogs, selling horses or their livelihood depends on their honesty. And it is not the truth….
This is so Mayor Mayans can jail his opponets!
Yes, it is definitely a civil, not criminal matter. And, of course, the truth is an absolute defense to any such charge. But the issue is, most importantly, damages. Regardless of the Plaintiff’s indisputable proof that the Defendant’s claims are blatantly false, if the Plaintiff can show no damage occurred to him/her because of false claim or claims, it comes down to “pissing in the ocean in hopes of raising the water level”. Criminalization has no place in this process, nor should it. There are already laws, such as “filing a false police report” to “obstruction of justice” that apply regarding false claims in certain specific situations, where criminalization may be justified.
If it’s an opinion held it isn’t.
Come on Schmidt, you’re the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER! Why be critical of the fact that Kansas has a stupid law on criminial defamation? Do something about it! You have the power. Don’t just stand there and wring your hands and whine. If it is a bad law have the guts to repeal it. Maybe you really want a law on criminal defamation so you can ues it to slience anyone critical of the Republicans. Huh, Derek?
McCain-Feingold, and most campaign finance laws, criminalize speech.The press doesnt care about free speech, they only care about THEIR speech!
Even in civil court, “actual malice” is required, for a “public figure” to win the case.How do you prove someone knew the insult was false when that person made the insult?Only if the defendant was dumb enough to tell someone, prior to the spoken or written word, that what was was going to be said was false.
If all lies and defammation wee criminal acts. Fox news would be out of business
Now I am curious. How does McCain-Feingold, and most campaign finance laws, criminalize speech?
My understanding is that it may criminalize the funding of the speech (or the funding of the platform it is presented in) but not the speech itself. There is a vast difference between the two.