Trying to Make Speech a Crime

By Kirtley, Jane | American Journalism Review, November 1996 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Trying to Make Speech a Crime


Kirtley, Jane, American Journalism Review


Mention the word "libel" to most journalists, and it conjures up nightmare scenarios of protracted civil suits launched by powerful plaintiffs, culminating in big money judgments rendered by resentful juries against news organizations.

But that's only part of the story. Lurking in the statute books of more than half the states are laws that make it a crime to publish or broadcast false and defamatory statements. Penalties include fines, jail time or both.

Historically, these statutes were intended to prevent public disorder by punishing reckless falsehoods that might incite duels, riots or other acts of revenge. They also tried to ensure that only "right-thinking" people expressed critical opinions about the government by allowing libel defendants to cite truth as a defense only if they could also show that they acted with "good motives and justifiable ends."

Most of these statutes are clearly unconstitutional by modern standards. A 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case, Garrison vs. Louisiana, decided the same year as the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan, held that truthful criticism of public officials is absolutely protected from criminal as well as civil defamation charges. But the court did not address the question of whether criminal libel was unconstitutional in purely private defamation actions.

In the wake of Garrison, several state legislatures repealed criminal defamation laws, and some state courts struck them down. But Montana's law stayed on the books. And so in 1994, when Richard Helfrich was prosecuted for stalking after he distributed about 100 fliers in the Butte area alleging that another man had committed a crime, he was also charged with violation of the criminal defamation law.

Helfrich was convicted of both charges. On appeal, he argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed him to be convicted of a crime based on a standard less rigorous than in a civil libel suit. The Montana law permitted him to assert truth as a defense, but only if he could show he had communicated the information with "good motives and for justifiable ends."

The Montana Supreme Court agreed with Helfrich. It ruled unanimously that the state legislature could not dilute the constitutional requirement that truth is an absolute defense to any libel claim by requiring the speaker to demonstrate that he had good motives for saying what he did.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Trying to Make Speech a Crime
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?