The Minnesota law that says defamation is a crime likely bit the dust last week, after the state Court of Appeals ruled it conflicted with that pesky principle called freedom of speech.
The case involved an Isanti County man who created sexually explicit Craigslist postings pretending to be his ex-girlfriend and her minor daughter, complete with their phone numbers. He was convicted of the gross misdemeanor of criminal defamation, which is defined as "anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation."
Lest anyone think that important free expression cases feature poets and political dissenters, they usually involve revolting speech, like angry men posting naked photos of ex-girlfriends online. In striking down the law, the appeals court felt compelled to pronounce the behavior in the case "reprehensible and defamatory." But the law criminalized even true statements, if they were delivered with malevolent intent.
While no one argued that the Isanti man was telling the truth, the appeals court ruled that he couldn't be prosecuted under such a blatantly unconstitutional statute.
About half of states have a criminal libel statute, although most are more narrowly written than Minnesota's, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA. Volokh filed an amicus brief in the case.
So how did Minnesota's criminal defamation law hang around for 52 years?
First, it wasn't used much. And when it was trotted out, the defendants didn't win much sympathy.
"Some of the speech was really, really horrible," speculated Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota. Prosecutors "felt they were doing their civic duty, that they were punishing people who did that."