Have you been calumniated lately? For those of us who dare venture into the public domain as commentators, such has become par for the course. But perhaps nothing dissuades good men and women from becoming candidates for public office more than the risk, no likelihood, of calumny.
Just so you know, calumny means “a false and malicious statement designed to injure a reputation” – American Heritage Dictionary.
Niccolò Machiavelli, of all people, contended calumniators should not escape punishment. In his Discourses he argued that calumniators “should be made to bring a formal charge (impeachment), and, when the charge is borne out by the facts, should be rewarded or at any rate, not punished; but, when it is not borne out by the facts, they should be punished.”
Machiavelli contrasted casual calumny to formal impeachment of someone’s character saying, “calumny needs neither witness, nor circumstantial proof to establish it,” whereas impeachment requires “substantive charges” and “trustworthy evidence.”
He argued calumny was so pernicious to good government, “We must neglect no means which may serve to check it.”
A pioneer of modern republicanism (small “r”) in 1517, Machiavelli would be out of touch in the American republic of 2024. It is rare these days for calumnious behavior to be checked. Rather, it seems to be encouraged.
Northside Sun published Wyatt Emmerich has written ardently about the unfair advantage Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 gives social media platforms. That’s when Congress exempted internet platforms from libel laws.
“Traditional media is responsible for every word they produce,” he wrote. “Any damaging falsehoods are subject to libel and slander laws, common laws that were a thousand years in the making.”
“But Congress decided in 1996 that the poor internet companies needed a helping hand. They were too small and fragile to have to fight possible libel lawsuits.”
No longer poor in 2024, the largest internet platforms still enjoy this protection.
Since 1996, the number of social media internet sites has proliferated to include X (formally Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Truth Social, SnapChat, WhatsApp, Messenger, YouTube, Twitch, Discord, and Reddit plus a macro universe of blogs. They provide a rich environment for calumny, particularly those that allow anonymous posts.
While individual posters may still be sued for libel, the costs for such lawsuits can be prohibitive, especially if you have to sue the platforms to identify anonymous posters. And those of us in the public domain have a higher burden to prove “actual malice” than others.
Niccolò would argue for repeal of Section 230 as a first step to check calumny.
Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Jackson.