LIBEL wouldn't be oppressive to journalists if only prosecutors understood its laws better.

Who may be sued for libel? Besides the writer, the law lists editor and business manager. Supreme Court added more to the usual suspects: "all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication."

"The Manny Pacquiao Blog". Click here for stories and updates on the Filipino boxing champ.

That would include computer technicians, circulation guys, and newsboys. "Silly," a mass com student said aloud in class, "moronic."

But listing people doesn't automatically hold them liable. The law sets essentials for fixing guilt, among which, notably, is malice.

For malice to even come close to being there, respondent (a) must have written, edited, or reviewed the "offensive" story, or (b) must have some ill-will or spite against the person "libeled."

For example, how can a manager, whose job is merely to monitor cost and profit, or an editor, who mostly does oversight functions, have any rancor against a complainant he doesn't know from Adam?

When a prosecutor sees probable cause against publication workers who hadn't even seen the story and he tosses to the judge the initial work of spotting a non-case, woe to journalists, press freedom, and the justice system.

Probable cause

Precisely why there are prosecutors. They're supposed to see if the case would hold up in court.

How many libel cases prosper? Too few. Most are dumped by courts clogged with poorly evaluated complaints.

Many prosecutors, alas, think that mere allegations establish probable cause and, what the heck, leave it to the court to find out.
Silly or moronic? No, but pretty close.

(paseares@yahoo.com)