The first time I ever became familiar with the threat of libel charges was when as a young adult I performed one of my occasional meritorious deeds on behalf of a young lady who had been touched in an unwelcome way by a much older elder and whose dissatisfaction at that unwanted affection led to a complaint that went up the power channels only to be blocked by the person who was then in charge of ministerial affairs of my church at the time. I relayed the concerns of the young lady’s mother to the person responsible, explained that a prompt response would be much appreciated, and then relayed the precise contents of the message back to the mother. The son of the minister I corresponded with, when faced with the unpleasant result of his father’s comments to me, threatened to sue me for libel. My reply was that truth is an absolute defense against libel. I was not sued, and there the matter was dropped.

Since I have never been sued for libel, at least not yet (an experience I hope to avoid), I cannot speak about it from personal experience. However, I have known, at least as a slight acquaintance, one person who is currently being sued for libel by the government of Liberia for his rather harsh posts against them. Other people I have heard suffer the threat of lawsuits from a certain corrupt Dutch politician who is guilty of horrible crimes against vulnerable children. I take that sort of crime rather personally, as might be imagined [1]. Nevertheless, it is something I have only seen from afar and never, thankfully, face to face.

In a way, I am fortunate to be an American citizen, since libel laws here are rather friendly to blunt speakers of unpleasant truths. In order to prove libel charges one has to be someone who is not a public figure (I’m not sure if I count as a public figure, but probably not, and most of the people I blog about are less public than I am, aside from the corrupt figures of athletics and politics that occasionally fill these pages). One has to prove malicious intent as well as actual harm. In the United States, someone accusing someone else of libel (or slander, its written analogue) have to prove guilt. In other countries, this is not necessarily the case. In many European countries, someone accused of libel has to prove innocence, which is a much more difficult task than proving guilt, as I have found to my own peril on more than one occasion (thankfully not in a court of law, though things could have easily gotten to that point).

The truth is a tricky matter, though. Many of us, myself included, have a commitment to truth in our own hearts and minds. What we speak and write we believe to be true, even if we admit that we have our own bias and perspective that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but includes our own wishes and fears and thoughts and assumptions as well that may not be true. At what point does the common fallibility of mankind make our claims to speaking truth and defending us from claims of libel and defamation of character impossible to maintain. If we say that it is possible for a given leader to have committed all kinds of horrible sins, do we have to prove those charges to be true or else be considered a liar, even if we speak in terms of possibilities and probabilities? This is a serious and unpleasant question. By the same standard of truth that we allow ourselves, we have to allow others as well, and it feels a lot worse being target of half-truths than it feels to be someone who flings them at others. For truth is an absolute defense against libel, but to know the truth and to practice it is no straightforward matter.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/an-abuse-of-power/