{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:the-libel-laws",
  "slug": "the-libel-laws",
  "title": "The Libel Laws",
  "subtitle": "Essay.",
  "excerpt": "An essay on the libel laws — their purpose, their abuse by the powerful, and their effect on the freedom of the press.",
  "year": 1887,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/the-libel-laws/",
  "wordCount": 393,
  "body": "Question. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to remodeling the\nlibel laws?\n\nAnswer. I believe that every article appearing in a paper should\nbe signed by the writer. If it is libelous, then the writer and the\npublisher should both be held responsible in damages. The law on\nthis subject, if changed, should throw greater safeguards around the\nreputation of the citizen. It does not seem to me that the papers have\nany right to complain. Probably a good many suits are brought that\nshould not be instituted, but just think of the suits that are not\nbrought.\n\nPersonally I have no complaint to make, as it would be very hard to find\nanything in any paper against me, but it has never occurred to me that\nthe press needed any greater liberty than it now enjoys.\n\nIt might be a good thing for a paper to publish each week, a list of\nmistakes, if this could be done without making that edition too large.\nBut certainly when a false and scandalous charge has been made by\nmistake or as the result of imposition, great pains should be taken to\ngive the retraction at once and in a way to attract attention.\n\nI suppose the papers are liable to be imposed upon—liable to print\nthousands of articles to which the attention of the editor or proprietor\nwas not called. Still, that is not the fault of the man whose character\nis attacked. On the whole I think the papers have the advantage of the\naverage citizen as the law now is.\n\nIf all articles had to be signed by the writer, I am satisfied the\nwriter would be more careful and less liable to write anything of a\nlibelous nature. I am willing to admit that I have given but little\nattention to the subject, probably for the reason that I have never been\na sufferer.\n\nIt would hardly do to hold only the writer responsible. Suppose a man\nwrites a libelous article, leaves the country, and then the article is\npublished; is there no remedy? A suit for libel is not much of a remedy,\nI admit, but it is some. It is like the bayonet in war. Very few are\ninjured by bayonets, but a good many are afraid that they may be.\n\n—The Herald, New York, October 26,1888.\n"
}