# Libel Laws

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [October 13, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574 "2011-10-13T21:07:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574/21 "2011-10-14T22:14:51Z")

</div>

> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Defamation claims are made under state law, not federal law, but the truth defense is derived from the First Amendment. I don’t know that there has been a definitive statement by the Supreme Court that truth is an absolute defense under the First Amendment, but I don’t think anyone expect that it could possibly rule otherwise.
> 
> It’s federal precedent that establishes the public figure standard, as well as the fact-opinion dichotomy, and the bar on strict liability. The Falwell case is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the First Amendment, and thus is binding on all state courts.

The right of free speech is not absolute. It yields to a compelling interest of the government, which could be a state government.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574/22 "2011-10-14T22:16:06Z")

</div>

> [@barbitu8](#):
>
> The right of free speech is not absolute. It yields to a compelling interest of the government, which could be a state government.

And what specific point do you think you’re making with this vague truism?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574/23 "2011-10-15T10:12:27Z")

</div>

> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> And what specific point do you think you’re making with this vague truism?

If a state determines that even if the statement is true, but is done with malice, it has a compelling interest to prevent such malicious statements unless the person is a “public figure” (who thus has opened himself or herself to public scrutiny).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574/24 "2011-10-15T12:53:23Z")

</div>

It’s not clear whether you are proposing this as a personal philosophy or as applicable law in some jurisdiction. Do you have an applicable decision at hand? My reading of Noonan v. Staples is that the First Amendment issue was never addressed. Unless I’m missing something,

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574/25 "2011-10-15T20:12:57Z")

</div>

As I stated at post #18, IIRC, I’m fairly certain that was the law in Illinois. However, I studied law in Illinois over 40 years ago. I could be mistaken, but that’s the way I recall it. I’m retired now in SC, and haven’t been in Illinois since 1985. Moreover, I never practiced law, having worked for Chicago Title and SSA.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws/599574.md?page=1)