HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017237.jpg

4.2.12 WC: 191694 written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel.” Since I am a public figure under the law, I have been defamed on numerous occasions, especially on the internet. The libels and slanders have been both personal and political. Although these defamations were published with actual malice, I have not sued, though I have often been tempted. (I once threatened to sue when a journalist made up a false racist and sexist quotation and attributed it to me; the newspaper investigated, agreed with me and made a contribution to my favorite charity). Many years after New York Times v. Sullivan, I myself was charged with defamation—indeed criminal defamation—for exercising my own freedom of speech to criticize a judge for an opinion she wrote. This certainly made me appreciate our First Amendment. Here is the story: One day in my office I opened an envelope and saw a notice that an Italian prosecutor in the city of Turin had initiated a criminal investigation against me. I had no idea what she could be referring to. The letter stated that I had committed the alleged act in the city of Turin on January 27%, 2005. I checked my calendar and discovered that I was teaching students at Harvard Law School on that day and then attending a lecture by a prominent federal judge. I could not possibly have been in Turin or engaged in any criminal act there. Yet I soon discovered that I was being charged with criminal libel for statements I had made in an interview with an Italian journalist over the telephone. The journalist was in New York. I was sitting at my desk in Cambridge. But the interview was published by the newspaper La Stampa in Turin on January 25", 2005. Accordingly, the alleged criminal act had taken place in Turin, even though I had never set foot in that city. Nor had I engaged in any act other than responding to questions and expressing my heartfelt views about a judge who had written a foolish and dangerous judicial opinion that ruled that three men suspected of recruiting suicide bombers were “guerrillas” and therefore not terrorists, and not guilty. I characterized her opinion as a “Magna Carta for terrorism,” and instead of answering (or ignoring) me, she filed criminal charges with the prosecutor who decided to open an investigation. As far as I know, the charges against me are still pending in Italy. I have every intention to fight them if it comes to that. A variation on the theme of defamation is ridicule. Cartoons and drawings have long been used to ridicule the high and mighty. More recently photo-shopped pictures have superimposed the heads of public figures on the bodies of others to demean or insult them. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the Reverend Jerry Falwell could not sue Hustler Magazine for publishing a parody of the well known Campari Liqueur ads in which a celebrity described “his first time.” The ad relies on the obvious double-entendre on the first sexual and drinking experience. In the parody, Falwell is shown drinking and having sex with his mother—pretty disgusting! But as the Supreme Court rightly observed: 150 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017237