Esen a plierer a th co stut thk dailbettde llepse, coerti amg e ououeen on y. Prary,he teexpts o thfit enen i nto binod b inodinacofhe iey. Shldayhe pple ha acmpsh are dl aw d rsamdmt ioi to ge cois b y o cho weaneto e nvsaon oufitue iflinos toymmia lt. s aanh jrnisan th werd ctul fasdir aanh wspe heasriiply rpoib fothtwepmb fohe ptbe00puiciof earonhaniat t rlidmommedaron cororsin 200 lspuisdtynnof sinchi wubsh b ca ianngshralaon in01 seewaedanitar presnenrkinudg terywa fm eeang inlltu nsperju stee frk bkl, m rht i unti pfeort e al l soo agege mannirsy. Heasuaanieamic cizehiansutr t f e yac rtong throsefmecawhh aparaseaanwhh waki eugtoissst a pocyuneohere. Fal cvean c k coerti ptns b rerearern effe disrit,rein l. P. Wree sciiz i rsamdmt gh heasam l o t yr c. N eators fst amdmtnditatn rs amdmt. Ioth ohrv qureistiedmorn counatnsaw ihohto g o nvsaon srt tayn r enth iou a rbims ssleeaso ot or easye oo owrede tmpn rs enenanfr sec ises ebar o20 enanda tmpai i intopeupuribaw soheth wteorblan neti a fsertlee caueheanwilof moy. rgogo enp os bela s wn e w rk me wte aitie wch aot dgrer he wainonos wchs er fo oereansris hi ecwe c s tm d n neineaofavg n an owiin bau eye tay pteed incterf 16e elored iicinthid ate tnkthfit enenprid t mh otti, at hwod ke to cngth ls me si tsumea cpaes he lend atnd cre w,uo, r esislled s wter eyan que. Mr tmp romnd ath meovg aysm ken enanwhe mee w ss a dicoan h, ot aoo chcefinngunote. Sde tmeou beev othreomf e prs,obyelveint stng tn. Unot veer01 aeravg beleedredef e unedtas,r. Ru twte nodhod alwetourhemeca ag ifhedotheusbe coeqnc. Peaplo ocizehior a arn jl. Unot d fal, stda m um tet iu. Bkl esotll fe ee a accevien onnnen op wh dfent pntf ewhe a c, fer nd qstnar uuo. Flinngou y g u sttehe b oerg me outsn. Tmp aten a yrie . Emg deap t lce. sictoe he,ha y r e iitio john. Thk iou s igera ou psintru tt aulref torae d e ameou prid w itthfl buinanheugstn tt op mhtetrpeof thritenipf ey enrtnehaki o acvi, tnkndat wt moiinto issratialppac amgopis ihe. Sor inure enhey enhe o ayinst ospki bal othpelend beev ty ve rht t teinwhbeng tth op a won a iyo n aee tn u e t pa oth cmutynd y n sipd yr tinsp. Hi ihi tsulref sneae d gerare. Nt cesoib l inmrtrp n unrsndthheso lilaw ferib w,nlsteaw ihi, th y c le,rpp. Anhe ion tnkha m umis mbeheai peetto b i ctrutg cmahaishain thcrti oheeliohi n di crt a bl. 96 e w rkim it bn cmofeurth sp t miao tein wt ine wth an is vy ffulto w a se ain ted ith veetmid atomhi isewwohy i inth i cngg n a trp langntha ime. Weadheas thinkwh eyenanupanyoca wtr o t fts oon eyid b ihi t ncsi i tt ncot ymeilrodeheew mea e nasa wn cos derni wth mein ineory. Anru, lelg eed thppitn,isstg peledionteoe,s plinin tndmingf htrt t mia an jnaihead asmbd an oxptsn thfit enen i n at ihe oy cae ias um spoersom t cricl mb de ,y blhe w hin the wlde ptes,ha wod gd f ses buwh hoetnoabt mes acalord a nepar poer bui dn ditn is cotr iidt toury reupn,n na. Colelyett. Ok thejumecandhes anndhesotngn beee rit . Y kw, eryerel i th wlds aor o beiged dposmbu tn inngfleinecl ye, aithearig o faisislws ouo deenonhe utestesut std bu seh i lds on eop we dto fci. F tib ls um waedoras nsper rert, ord r omonap, ty ai ani s aedy pits d sd atadeeth esenf orcl a i rereanhohtth ivsesnfdi ait shld thfit in iids ard biabt lelaw itas fciti t rli i haso rpoibits t trh. Wed uf y rorth nmap. Brn dd d tns o rm bbrn lind noan. Owis t g w edoue stibedhe vi g. Yohatoor authe in. U ow aini he o cose isassmndraan ofoue is t ari, at se cld it b t wspeinst i bta i prtyar gd. So pplhe wldavha e peen ithe lt colef ar aut tinto genebout ari fmhe elra tday ml. Tontha fr dli, in raer wl. Lufri fm e op gngo entne d l at d earri iasn unuced mleiaesho cat adndll oth. T mew eye dngel rcatn t sr ou5000 gle t se. Naon pt, 2,0. Thrdogatr ll d hanhed o ny colatsboheufri dehifais lelaw th yvbeesibg. B ir, ha t corala y o t tle ts scsi. Wiru teanreomf spch i in wldody ian sa wn llrede tmp reenreomf peh . Anwh te i [lghr] s cpan s o teao thprs fedf ee teanhe ththg atak iunua ishaiteay otng diert omos adniraon thifree tt um i a tika yeoitr totcynom suscotalypein wioua fte u vehe cstt ouurs at obly prs e nethgh o mo pitiabuheus sa tm o ld. Whsntesngsha erhaeemo pelin mo pceabt um a t fit enenthny c meerin ie bn prtingawn whito veee pctinfoov yrs the emo o ery we aesnghathimct gngo. I t tt. Wi stentik w nee topeupheib ls a the esbeg e mt diont op o t fe e eth bu tnktnessy to ke lk d s wt diinisshi mistti fm pvis on, iyorelyanto se t iac afr l, wleredent amdit me e me kis ilammatyomnt outhprshatrp do, dnis adnistraon itie re ak iesgaonth precio tleshaal evusdmisatnsn sty mbed u soav iyocoar pridt umtoilry clto i dthi tt e s a me anart tn um wlde. Orridltohere, r atatr. Thandas ts ar caaiedn ptfmf poti sre crt juic tt wldndmi rs andntreom y aeptrumpstemt ou oni uth lelaw asom iicioofhoe nt tppntthha s e al hiarclto cpaneon th ia aoiinomne whhaovtued cizs it. Ai ianembea me inhi cditefr bh jopaie cpaneopg uernexiin ottis rir enen so wn e esons is, wi tmphrtethfit enen, e awehato beomreo at i inotmarares moolicnsarhoil toheir andnt ifhe cldth wldik topeupibaworin otraytoim t pss an sth qstn als, wh ecthis at tmp mit cldndmi t fit enen i infit er o, u kn, jt acce wh e prs. Wee enhe onials ha thattoimre aes tohe wteou, sve baon sinit te r e eso t wnnd st. No at n gngo pp. D thk oswi he fe b is rdo ll whheorothawi b mo ifar fe ee o agns bause ihi ns gazaonwi apt itayctll iro urli,f u veor rertg d sselngn ce tpelen pitns per heewortis,t shgt pt,otr ws ornitis e rey veinmo ithr it hoe vege itayndp ina t poti, cae heewortis, lstou kn w yrdversa i thhe admisatn scbi t psss poti pty we, tt t ce,et e a rl poti. Colyiner opocy o ummit appot vaoukeosio, tnk th clde miofhis. Ffesons nfmeas atrn ger. Dot inthtgog ldo y repees wh i ceso ak osutns ri h cfiatn argswaonmmta ouwhheorote ul coin tt en the s bn lkf wth n t jtieptmt ulrevetsatna enrcen scit foemt it trp aa ndatidak e ed tra dn poogph whh emodfoomneho habe i aoue st rnids hse. T netle. Aute the hehae atoly mamo ith decon i oweoehoraic rsamdmt w tt eareui cceed aut wh mhtapn uer tmp mistti. D ssis ste pame. T me wl ll oth. T heagci,ikth delomnitis coisonreiky me a me rsmeme iely decon thne cirn s ard thmea stutsir enenawdasfa. Heay cehiso saabtroctg e rs amdmt. T tn,ouno tngca pp oe u cirn, suec tthpotil esreofhaol wee enhamewhala go fstmemeamin thpawh phom t ovbeorreriiv buive hefbo at jo tnke jt preebyeoeannghe flr d enakg. Aorl cveatn. Wel eowt s. I dso go. I dso te pce stf. He. Authara sd ou k. Lelaw age at therishre otadndheardog itwe whithrawo t cre lelaw bu ifa, eyavbe chge ltlbi , nd 1 1yes o ssn oligchndau ,hewe nre rtn e k. O ppssnfmaonhath ditik ris u. Tinho blhea okn fanng teor sh nedau abi a sai abn bliai i rooanheuehen u. Crtndheasn ct coicd. Thk re bkserol onhe. Kamonomndhe codn g tthu. A i thkonespaed l t ket eath s cldt u. Tein t tseymlil wsren fa sohe lelawar ac bng ud sprs italnfmaon jo ppss ls otrh . Dtnothca s ncoen i g io es coertis theoen th cnt autthis country about fr which is the subject of cato, of course. And it often comes down to, well, i dont care. We have the First Amendment and you dont. Frank at least you dont have it the same way. Therefore youre, again, youre iran. And that seems to me to be a piece of kind of, may i say, First Amendment fetishism. It is not the case that you can easily compare freedom in one country versus another country. But if you did, which is something cato does, right . Cato has this table of Economic Freedom in different countries. And if you like freedom, then, were you given the chance to swap all american laws and the constitution and the First Amendment, for the Canadian Parliamentary system, and its libel laws, and medicare, you would be intelligent to swap. Because if you did that, you would find yourself living in a freer country, according to cato. I rest my case. And indeed, of the countries ahead of the United States on that list, all of them are, well, theyre mostly countries with british common law. That is to say, british or canadianstyle libel laws. Canada, by the way, apparently has the most proplaintiff libel laws anywhere. You know whats funny about this sort of thing, theres a tendency to look at laws in isolation. Canada has extremely plaintifffriendly, substantive libel laws, but very defendantfriendly procedural laws. And the United States is just the opposite. American procedural law fairly beckons the plaintiff to come to court. But then you have strict First Amendment barriers when it comes to substantive law. So that at last, extremes come to touch, possibly, in the end. To quote ben johnson. So, the differences may not in practice be all that good, but in general they matter. Im not practicing in the area. But i assembled this group called scholars and writers for america, it was a protrump group. Did i it in part because i thought it would be amusing to find people who call themselves scholars supporting trump. We got 150 odd people, right. And then what happened was the press went through the list trying to find dirt on the people and they found one person. A person who 30 years back had been smeared as a nazi sympathizer. There was nothing to the story, if you had researched it for just a moment, would you have realized the charges were completely everybody apologized for it afterwards. A letter was written. Completely cleared of all of this. But nofrls, the new republic carried a story smearing her as this nazi agent on the list. And one thought, wouldnt this be a Good Opportunity to put the new republic out of business . Im not sure if it is in business. But, right . And then i discovered that by putting her name on the list, she was now a public figure and New York Times applied. Of course there is no such thing as New York Times and sullivan in canada. The canadian Supreme Courts expressly decided not to follow that decision. I regretted that barrier. It was, we would have had recklessness at least. If one did a momentarily search on the internet, you would have discovered that there was this story and then there were these 10 counterstories and it would have been too complicated to do. So i regret that. Yes, there are times when ill just mention this one last thing. I dont know about the case you mentioned. There are other cases where its important to vindicate truth. And as youve mentioned, british courts, youll recall the david irvine case, david irvine is a holocaust defire iner denier. Who i guess sued mr. Fleming it was in austria. It was in austria that he was convicted to a prison term. Frank but im talking about the libel case in britain. A british judge said, im going into this, you know, i sort of know what happened to in the holocaust. But ill approach it with a fair and open mind. Im just having read all the material, i conclude that david irvine is rogue and hes going to have to pay 2 million pounds. So as i say, truth becomes an important thing to vindicate in all of this. That which gives newspaper writers a greater incentive to ferret out truth, the not always about that. Let me jump in here. Maybe broaden this out a little bit. In arguing about Campaign Finance in particular, but about First Amendment free speech issues for a long time, john one thing ive noticed is people generally believe that lies should not be permitted to be spoken. The only problem is that generally speaking everybody believes what the other side is lies. Is so whauve uni so what youve set up is, now i understand libel is a different thing, but a general problem here, is that theres no room and flexibility, that is, for saying, well, maybe its not, you know, somebody could see it differently. That kind of thing. No. Even people that are supposed to be in favor of the First Amendment on Campaign Finance issues ive found really dont want people running for office to say things that they think are lies. So once you in a sense, and were now in the fake news era and all of this stuff, i would say that the culture out there in a sense is people actually dont have that kind of leeway, that kind of flexibility, or theres a danger they dont, and to think that without that flexibility you really created some justifications for First Amendment or free speech violations or limiting free peech. Bob thats why having government be the ash tror of truth is such a bad idea. If youre talking about private litigation, as in the case of libel, as trying to set that bar. The why New York Times versus sullvar van developed the way it did. With vs. Sullivan developed the way it did. With a strong presumption that it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the statement is false and ringed about with other constitutional protections. Im fascinated to hear about canada, though. I think its a very nice country. I like their syrup. They do have different libel laws. But i think it would be an extraordinarily bad thing to try and import here i mean thats one of the reasons why i wasnt so worried about candidate trump talking about opening up the libel laws. Two reasons for it. One, he didnt have the slightest idea what he was talking about. Second, i dont think he was going to be able to find judicial appointees who would, in his term, open up the libel laws. In fact, if you look at the record of his nominee, neil gorsuch, you have a rather strong First Amendment record, including in media and defamation cases. Im not so worried about President Trump fulfilling the promises of candidate trump in that regard. But in terms of the search for truth, and i speak as a former journalist myself. I know a bit about the day we daily riggers of trying to find a story and make sure that the accurate. We saw in a case just a few years ago what the consequences are when the government does try and enforce standards of truth. That was afflevers vs. The United States. It was a case involving the federal law. It could punish people criminally for lying about having won military honors. What the court ultimately determined was that it really is a bad idea to have the government enforce standards of truth by law and that its much better handled through the marketplace of ideas, through other people pointing out when someone has been untruthful about their military accomplishments. And i think that really does maintain the constitutional balance. Those similar laws have been attempted in trying to maintain truth by political candidates. If you can imagine that. Seems like you would have to have night courts operating 24 hours a day if youre really going to enforce standards of truth by candidates. Frankly i think the current inhabitant of the oval office would have to worry about it a great deal as well. But we learned the hard lesson with the alien and sedition act, which were all about trying to enforce standards of truth by newspapers. That it really is incompatible ith our constitutional system. John i think whats referred is obamas trick of identify an extreme position and trying to position himself right in the middle. Let me assure you there is no ministry of truth in england or in canada. Frank and if you listen to parliamentary debates in either country, would you realize that theres a pretty big latitude for the ordinary slanging that goes on. They have parliamentary privilege. It is simply not the case that if you are in a free society, that youre going to start stomping on people, you know, playing politics, right . Thats the point really, isnt it . Again, if youre trying to judge liberty, i mean, it depends so much more on the attitudes that everyone understands in society of of that which is permitted and that which isnt. If youre in a liberal society, which most western countries are, you understand that instinctively, without having to be informed by a First Amendment excerpt. You know this in your bones. When you go into these other countries, youre in a free country. You know this because of the people in the country and not the politicians in the country. And not the courts in the country. I guess i am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that maybe we should just blow up all libel law. I teach contracts law. And i like it. Because its about private ordering. But id feel really uncomfortable trying to teach securities regulation. Which i dont believe in. I would be like an eighth yift atheist trying to at that teach a course in sacred theology or antitrust law or american tort law. All things which im not convinced add to the sum of Human Happiness in any great way. And libel law in particular. Theres so many ways out around i mean, first of all, theres all the new media, which youre not going to go after, of course, because theyre a judgment group. In the end, does it matter what a rag like the new republic might have to say in the end . Perhaps publish and be damned is the best thing you can do. I say that not only because i sympathize with the duke of wellington, but also because i dont exactly have the greatest of respect for the american judicial system. When i think of a case like the michael mann lawsuit for libel against national review. That was supposed to be shut down by the slap act. You know what that is . Its an effort to basically import canadian law. A slap is an acronym. It means so lawyers are prosperous. It just goes on and on and on and on. Might it not be better just to get rid of the whole damn thing . Im halfway persuaded that in as much as i do think that libel laws work in canada, maybe theyre not suited for america. If you think you can just export laws like that, then you make mads madisons mistake in quoting the celebrated modest view about the celebration of his separation of powers. What madison didnt understand is that before month skew was a political theorist, he was a sociology who knew that for each country theres an appropriate set of laws. And the appropriate set of laws for america might not be those f another country. Bob that would mean President Trump would have no recourse except for his twitter account. Frank ill mention that. Although i was a trump supporter, advisor on the campaign, and though i read the post pretty regularly, im not aware of anything that was said by the post or the New York Times that was libelous. As to trump. Fleming do you believe that the truth should be protected by the First Amendment . Frank theres circumstances where, as in the david irvine case, where i applaud the result. , i guess a al certain amount of skepticism does make sense. The story abou