REWRITING YOUR HISTORY: One of the genuine problems with overbroad efforts to scale back libel defenses is that we may open up the opportunity for wealthy or “connected” people to completely rewrite history.

Background: There are more than a few bold-faced names who regularly threaten or file libel suits if your story does not paint them in the light in which they want to be seen. The Church of Scientology is a good example.

In my own personal experience, convicted felon Michael Milken sends in lawyers and spin-doctors every time he is referred to as “The Junk Bond King.” They all insisted to me that he is better known as a “philanthropist.” I suppose if you are paid enough to say that, you start to believe it.

Similarly, publishing magnate Conrad Black tried to ruin my weekend when one of our stories described — from court records, no less — his conviction on charges of felony fraud and obstruction of justice. He pushed the “lawyer” button, of course. To be fair, he was pardoned, but that does not erase the courtroom history of a mentally competent adult man who made the choices he did.

I once had the pleasure of responding to a complaint from Bill Ford, when our magazine piece mentioned the horrifically anti-semitic background of Henry Ford and the The Dearborn Independent. No matter how gently or fairly one describes the man’s history, there’s simply no getting around it. 

And now to the present. Gerry Adams of IRA and Irish political fame is suing the BBC because in 2016 it broadcast an allegation that Adams had been consulted on, and sanctioned, the 2006 murder of Denis Donaldson, a former Sinn Fein official who was revealed to have been a paid agent working for British intelligence. Reported by The Times of London, the writer says:

“There is no need to take a view on the Donaldson case, however, to appreciate that Adams is once again engaged in the wholesale rewriting of history. This is made clear by his own lawyer’s comments to the effect that Adams’s reputation has been grievously damaged by the Donaldson allegation, because, look, “Gerry Adams’ reputation is that of a peacemaker. It has taken Gerry Adams a lifetime to gain that reputation.”

Now, realize, this case is proceeding under Irish law, which is far less forgiving of a false and defamatory statement than that of our First Amendment. It’s always possible (especially as an EU member) that the Irish court recognizes a “public interest defense.”

In either event, the case may be a barometer for what could happen here if we were to adopt looser libel defenses.

Morally, I have no problem with eliminating blatant falsehoods, but the wrong decision may allow the elite to airbrush history going forward.

Worth keeping an eye on. 

**Typo fixed, thanks to eagle-eyed reader**