Walter Block to sue New York Times???

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think he is being hypocritical, but I don't know what he should do!!!

FWIW, you shouldn't have to agree with libel law to sue under it just as you shouldn't have to agree with SS to collect benefits. Or to sue your neighbors for making too much noise. Does it matter if it is a zoning versus an HOA violation? There is a limit to this logic but I wouldn't start with suing for Uncle Sam's funny money.

This is not a matter of "getting back what was taken from you" or "trying to hasten the demise of the system" (ala claiming Social Security benefits). It is also not a case of seeking redress for some kind of property rights violation (ala noisy neighbors). Block has very clearly stated a number of times that one does NOT have any "property rights" in one's own reputation. Period. By his own logic, he has NO basis for any such action against the Times.

And as pointed out by mczerone earlier, note that in the "on the other hand" part of the second quote by Block in the OP, Block tries to justify a libel suit on the basis that the New York Times is a "bad actor" in other respects having nothing to do with libel per se. That just does not fly in my book.

I don't think Block should go through with this - and if he does, I think he will be a hypocrite. I will be very disappointed in him if that happens.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is not a matter of "getting back what was taken from you" or "trying to hasten the demise of the system" (ala claiming Social Security benefits). It is also not a case of seeking redress for some kind of property rights violation (ala noisy neighbors). Block has very clearly stated a number of times that one does NOT have any "property rights" in one's own reputation. Period. By his own logic, he has NO basis for any such action against the Times.

And as pointed out by mczerone earlier, note that in the "on the other hand" part of the second quote by Block in the OP, Block tries to justify a libel suit on the basis that the New York Times is a "bad actor" in other respects having nothing to do with libel per se. That just does not fly in my book.

I don't think Block should go through with this - and if he does, I think he will be a hypocrite. I will be very disappointed in him if that happens.

+1 plz don't give us teh disappoint, Walter! No lawsuit!

 

[Red Green]

The question is NOT whether "some people" would say so. The question is whether Walter Block himself would say so. And he very clearly does say so.

Hence, the question of whether Block is being a hypocrite. (It doesn't matter whether you agree with Block's position on libel or reputation.)

What matters is whether Block - if he pursues a suit for libel against the NYT - is behaving consistently with his own stated principles.

If Block has said that libel is not an aggression, then yes he is being hypocritical. I admit that I honestly am ignorant of the fellow's body of work. And, I am not sure this is even libel. He admitted to using the analogy, so in a way he needs to clean up his rhetoric as was mentioned in a previous post.

 

[idiom]

Libertarians have a burning desire to defend slavery while trying to gain ground in Politics.

Its like they imagine that 50% of people will vote for the most offensive rhetoric they hear.

For Block, Slavery follows from the logic of being able to Imprison or punish people. If you can do wither of those, then your rights to your own person are not inalienable.

This is a point lost on most NAP advocates, who like prison, or physical punishment, but don't like slavery.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The form of slavery that Block defends is voluntary slavery, ie. choosing to sell yourself. I disagree with him on this point, but there's an obvious difference between this and coercive slavery such as that which took place in the US pre-1865. At any rate, Walter should NOT sue here. He'd be hypocritical if he did. Maybe we should mass email him and tell him not to do it? I think this could really hurt the movement if we were known for inconsistencies like this.

 

[TheGrinch]

Putting hypocrisy aside (and that he'd probably be wiser to just let this go rather than letting the media control the narrative even more), he has absolutely no case whatsoever for libel. He even admits that the quotes were accurate.

To prove libel, you need to show:

1) that what they said was not only false, but knowingly false. He can't even satisfy the condition of falsity. Spin is not libel. That is why it is frequently used, because it removes context to use that person's words against them. Scummy, yes in many cases, but taking a quote out of context isn't even close to libel or slander.

2) malicious intent - an even bigger standard when it comes to public figures, is why they virtually never have a case. It is virtually improvable in most cases.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If Block has said that libel is not an aggression, then yes he is being hypocritical. I admit that I honestly am ignorant of the fellow's body of work.

He has indeed said so. (In the second quote in the OP, he said, "libel is not a per se violation of the NAP.")

He famously "defended" libel, blackmail, etc. in his book Defending the Undefendables.

And, I am not sure this is even libel. He admitted to using the analogy, so in a way he needs to clean up his rhetoric as was mentioned in a previous post.

I don't think it is libel, either (see TheGrinch's post above).

That's why I don't think he should waste any time or resources trying to sue (even if he wouldn't be hypocritical for doing so).

 

[Contumacious]

Or do you think he is being hypocritical? Do you think that Block should sue the New York Times?
Vote in the poll above &/or elaborate below ...

The NYT is a bullshit fishwrapper. Their editors strive to become another Pravda.

But its private property and should be allowed to print any garbage they choose.

.