The idea to write a quick summary on this topic was thwarted by the complications. The old Catholic catechism drew a clear distinction between two sins, calumny and detraction. The former is destroying a person’s good name by spreading lies. The second, strangely deemed to be worse, is disseminating true but damaging statements about someone, intending harm. Another distinction was also clear, slander was speaking badly about others while libel was publishing such statements.
It seems agreed that USA law differs from UK by having a written constitution with an explicit amendment protecting the right to freedom of expression, including satire. UK law seems to accept that calumny is not allowed whereas detraction can be justifiable but the burden of proof lies on the defendant. The innocent till proven guilty axiom requires that damaging statements are deemed to be false unless the defendant can offer compelling evidence that they are true/factual and for this reason not forbidden from publication. The difference between the two codes has given rise to the odious practice known as libel tourism, based on the distinction between satire, protected by US law, and defamation, forbidden by both.
In my recent post to the satirical news site Newsbiscuit.com, I included a bracket, referring to libel lawyers, expecting the editors to omit this if publishing but was intrigued that it was included. This made be rethink about the possibility that the post might be considered libellous. I took comfort in remembering how many liber actions have proved pretty disastrous for the plantiffs, Oscar Wilde and the notorious McLibel cases being prominent examples. The phrase “publish and be damned” also came to mind but Wellington’s expression was from a victim of blackmail rather than a libeller.
Whatever, I was happy when Newsbiscuit chose to publish and pleased that the post got over a hundred views and with a few more on LinkedIn. So now I have decided to risk reposting the piece here on my blog. If you like it, why not repeat your liking on the Newsbiscuit site?
Granger
- May 27
- 1 min read
I don’t recall nailing Jesus to a cross, says Roman soldier
In the latest phase in the inquiry into the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, the soldiers accused of actually hammering in the nails have been giving evidence. Paulus Venellius (name flexible according to libel lawyer’s advice) insisted that he had no recollection of ever nailing Jesus to a cross.
‘And even if I did,’ he continued, ‘obviously, I would have only been obeying orders from above. If you ask me, it’s that Pontius Pilate you should be asking. All very well his washing his hands in public and sending his laurel wreath back to the Emperor – but he was the official F-in-C (military term for the fellow in charge). I admit I did hear rumours of a bonus scheme whereby you had a target for how many executions per month, with extra points if the victims were totally innocent of any crime, but I have no record of getting any bonus payments.’
When questioned if he had any connections with the new cult of Christianity, he admitted to being open to suggestions. ‘A new church, could be some good opportunities for promotion. Maybe end up with a bishopric – think that’s the word I heard. I’ve always considered myself a man of faith. If this inquiry comes down against me, I have faith I’m tough enough to do a couple of weeks in sackcloth and ashes. But the idea of giving back my whole salary is totally out of the question. You can’t get blood out of a stone, I’ve always said.’
Francis B Granger 