Subject: Libel Cases in North America

From: [email-masked] (Sanyee Tang)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 01:27:00 GMT

“「年轻人出去见识见识是有好处的」，想起离京时导师的一番话，小谭心里稍稍感到一些踏实。”说得极是。但是也有人身在国外却死抱着“国粹”不放的。请看同期的《华夏文摘增刊》（zk9312a ）的妙文：

> “华夏文摘”编辑部：
>
> 　　贵刊第１３４期转载的王若望先生的文章中所讲述的毛泽东与孙维世之间
> 的所谓秘闻根本就不存在。该文无中生有，对已故孙维世女士的人格与尊严造
> 成极大伤害。我们要求王若望先生本着一个作家的良知和职业道德，对你文中
> 所提之事给予公开澄清。我们保留对这种不负责任的行为做进一步法律追诉的
> 权利。

> 孙维世亲属于美国
> ９３年１２月

    如果确知没有那类所谓的“秘闻”，孙维世的亲属应该出来声明一下。但是什么叫做“对已故孙维世女士的人格与尊严造成极大伤害”？难道说，一个女人不幸被强奸后，就成了没有人格没有尊严的不可接触的贱民？都什么年代了，怎么还要保留这种“丑陋的中国人”的心态？

    至于“保留对这种不负责任的行为做进一步法律追诉的权利”，更是笑话，除非是向共产党的法庭起诉。本人在ＳＣＣ上多次说过，北美的有关诽谤的法律，和大陆很不相同。大陆现在告记者作者成风，原告只要证明文中个别细节失实，记者作者就败诉了。北美的诽谤法，就要合理的多：细节失实，并不构成诽谤，要打赢官司，控方必须证明作者有“确实的恶意”（Actual Malice ），即作者明知来源有误却仍然引用不实的消息，以达到诽谤的目的。我看，王若望不见得有意要诽谤孙维世吧？

    即使是毛泽东的家属要在这儿打官司，恐怕也难以证明王若望“明知来源有误”。至少，他们应该先让国安局把６・４后抄去的笔记手稿全部还给王先生，使人家不必凭一个七十岁老人的记忆写文章。

    去年夏天，《时代》周刊的一篇文章说中国只有六十个游泳池，惹得ＳＣＣ上有些人歇斯底里发作。鄙人当时贴了篇东西，说到美国的两个案子，附在下面，给只讲“逻辑”不懂法律的蛋头们参考。

Address: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Time Magazine -- China Has Only 60 Swimming Pools
Msg-ID : <[email-masked]>
Posted : 24 Jul 92 09:19:19 GMT

    Surely China has far more than 60 swimming pools.  After the Reddest
Sun Chairman Mao swam in the Yangtze River in 1966 and issued the edict:

    "Go into winds and waves to build up your [revolutionary] wills!"

there was a fever of swimming-pool digging everywhere.  Right behind my
home (in China), there is a pool constructed in that time.  In summer it
is packed by hot bodies.  Sometime someone pees in water, failing to cut
a path to restroom within bladder's grace time.  In winter, vegetables are
salted there.  Local folklore says this swimming pool produces best pickles
in the town.  The residue of thousands athlete's feet must have helped to
turn up tonnes of more amino-acid.

     So the Time Magazine must be libelling our beloved China, correct?

     Don't derive your conclusion that quick.  The US libel law says the
key point is not the accuracy of a report, but whether an author has
recklessly
spread something which he knew was false.  In legal term, it means that
you have to prove there exists "actual malice."

    In the end of 1984, there were two famous libel cases.  One is the
ex-U.S. Commander in Vietnam, General W. Westmoreland's $120 million libel
suit against CBS, the other is the ex-Defense Minister of Israel, Ariel
Sharon's $50 million libel case against Time Magazine.  By flashing a few
pieces of paper (sorts of secret document), the General and the ex-Defense
Minister easily proved that those journalists' stories were not accurate.
But they couldn't pin down the "actual malice."  And today we still see CBS
and Time bring in all the news not that pleasant to powerful big shots.

    Now, boys, to be cool, real cool.  Instead of writing cheap sentiments
on sins of the Western media, you'd better ask the author what is his
source of data.  And check to see whether he possesses "actual malice."

    If you feel too hot, go to swimming.  In US, you should have no problem
to find a large, clean and a-few-persons-a-lane pool ...

－－散宜生　于枫叶之国、夜雨之都