By Robert Wenzel
EconomicPolicyJournal.com Exclusive--Dr. Walter Block, who holds the Walter Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and is Professor of Economics, at the Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyla University New Orleans, is in the process of interviewing lawyers for a planned lawsuit against the New York Times.
NYT in a frontpage article profile of Rand Paul characterized Block's view on slavery as being that "slavery was not so bad". (SEE: In Defense of the Mises Institute).
Block holds no such view and despite a number of attempts to get NYT to place a correction in the paper, none has been forthcoming.
For a detailed discussion of the controversy see: Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy
Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms; The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; The Case for Discrimination.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Nuke 'em, Walter!. Nuke 'em till they glow!
ReplyDeleteThe only reason why NYT and rest of the MSM still exist is the same reason GM and Chrysler still exist.
Obviously I'm glad he's doing it. Even if it's for different reasons than I'd do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure he'll get some flak from the anti-IP & anti-libel people.
You mean, like himself?
Delete"Now, there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel. We must, therefore, take particular care to defend the free speech rights of libelers, for if they can be protected, the rights of all others—who do not give as much offense—will certainly be more secure. But if the rights of free speech of libelers and slanderers are not protected, the rights of others will be less secure." - Walter Block in Defending the Undefendable
I know he is personally is against the entire concept of being able to sue for libel, that's why I mentioned that he's doing it for "different reasons than I'd do it".
DeleteBut really, I figured some anti-libel people may not buy into his reasoning(and I could be wrong).
Anyway, just because I see libel that becomes a NAP violation as an actionable offense and he doesn't doesn't mean the goal of getting the NYT's to not libel isn't the same between us.(I hate seeing his name/reputation smeared)
There's something to be said for the fact he is pursuing it anyway, regardless of the contortions he used philosophically to get there.
I draw a distinction where Mr. Block doesn't, in that I think anyone should be allowed to say anything they want, even if it results in a NAP violation, so I'm as much for free speech as anyone. But if said speech harms someone demonstrably(a clear NAP violation) in a fraudulent manner then I think they should be held responsible for said speech if the victim desires. (the whole yelling fire in a crowded theater thing or a variety of other examples)
In a recent video Dr. Block posted he did acknowledge the concept of "goodwill" in valuation, so I think he's aware of the potential for damage if someone fraudulently destroys it. Block is simply bound to a concrete/physical concept of property in that regard...which is odd to me because when it comes to Rothbard establishing a case for copyright he is definitely treating abstractions as "property"...so I see some inconsistency intellectually.
At least in the US, courts rarely rule against major press outlets in libel cases, especially when some argument (regardless how bad) can be made about the truth of their statements. Maybe Walter will get some publicity from this or even a settlement where they make a belated correction.
ReplyDeleteYeah, unfortunately, I don't think Walter has much chance of winning this thing...
Delete