Search EconLog

Is U.S. Defamation Law Going Singaporean?

Home
| EconLog
| Archives
| Permanent Link and Comments

Law prof legend Richard Epstein just escaped a ridiculous defamation suit. His offense was writing the following blurb for the back cover of Bulldozed: "Kelo," Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land:

Like a Greek tragedy unfolding, Carla Main's book chronicles the eminent domain struggles in Freeport, Texas, which pitted the Gore family, with its longtime shrimp business, against the machinations of an unholy alliance between city politicians and avaricious developers. If you have ever shared the Supreme Court's unquestioned deference to the public planning process that shaped its ill-fated Kelo decision, you'll surely change your mind as you follow this sordid saga to its bitter end. You'll never look at eminent domain in the same way again.

In Singapore, Epstein would have to affirmatively prove that there was an alliance between politicians and developers, and that the developers were "avaricious." Since that's the thesis of Bulldozed, though, the defamation suit is really asking a judge to rule on the accuracy of the book. That's a task Singaporean judges are often happy to perform. Are U.S. judges willing to do the same?

So far, the answer seems to be, "Maybe." The case was not summarily dismissed. Epstein got the case thown out on jurisdictional grounds - he hasn't been to Texas in ages! Alas, that means that the author and publisher are still on the hook. Stay tuned.

Comments and Sharing

CATEGORIES: Economics and Culture
Follow Bryan Caplan on Twitter

COMMENTS (6 to date)

Latest Comment

eric writes:

They should go after blurb whores, those prolific blurbers who throw indiscriminate 'must reads!' on conflicting arguments.

Posted March 3, 2009 12:52 PM

pmp writes:

We need a "loser pays" rule for torts.

The current system is extremely wasteful and constitutes nothing more than legalized harassment.

Posted March 3, 2009 2:20 PM

The Snob writes:

My impression is that judges are both highly status-conscious and risk averse. Throwing out a case based solely on jurisdictional issues is a very safe way to punt, especially if the plaintiff is an influential individual in the community.

Posted March 3, 2009 2:20 PM

andy writes:

epstein was only one defendant. the author will still stand trial, so i don't think this was really a punt...

Posted March 3, 2009 3:44 PM

scineram writes:

In my beloved Hungary there is a constitutional right to "goodreputation". 59.§(1)
ALL IN!

Posted March 3, 2009 6:41 PM

visweswaraiah writes:

Truth rarely triumphs in this world which is getting more and more wicked. Truth should be universally declared as an excellent defense in Defamation Cases.

Posted March 4, 2009 12:09 PM

Comments for this entry have been closed

Read comments

Return to top

Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.

The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the earliest-known written appearance of the word "freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

Contact Site Map Privacy and Legal http://www.econlib.org