Libel ruling is an affront to the principles of democracy

What kind of timid, tea-sipping, sob-sister, cowering society do we live in when a failed politician can run crying to the courts and get a $150,000 jackpot for claiming he was libeled by his political opponent?

On Monday state Sen. Mike Schneider, left, forked over that amount to Danny Tarkanian, right, son of the basketball coach and the city councilwoman, to settle a libel judgment handed down by a Clark County jury Friday. Tarkanian claimed he’d been defamed during his 2004 election campaign against Schneider, because his opponent sent out mailings saying Tarkanian worked for telemarketing firms investigated for allegedly scamming the elderly and suggesting Tarkanian escaped investigation by turning state’s evidence.

Tarkanian admitted he was a registered agent for several telemarketing companies that were indicted on fraud charges, but he claimed he merely did legal work for the companies and knew nothing of any fraud.

Now what are the elements of libel, again? Identification, falsity, defamation, publication and damages.

OK, Tarkanian was identified and the mailers were published. Granted.

Was the information false? He worked for the companies and escaped investigation. How do you prove falsity? Because Tarkanian said it was? Is that the level of evidence needed in our courts now?

Defamation? He’s a lawyer and put himself up for public office. That’s like a boxer claiming assault.

Damages? He lost the election as a Republican running in a heavily Democratic district. Has he lost any legal clients because of the allegations? If so, where’s the evidence? Were his feelings hurt? How much is that worth?

Tarkanian is definitely a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan and would have to prove actual malice or willing negligence. The first is a given in a legal campaign and the second is pretty hard to prove in a rapid-fire, rough-and-tumble campaign.

Schneider said in a statement: "I was very disappointed with the jury's verdict in the Tarkanian case against me. I believe this decision will have devastating ramifications on future campaigns and a chilling effect on free speech in general.

"I am fairly confident we would have reversed the decision at the Supreme Court. However, this matter has been a five-year ordeal and it was time to put it to rest."

What does it say about justice when winning in court comes down to outlasting your opponent’s willingness expend time, money and aggravation?

In a political campaign the bar should be much, much higher. In my book a politician should be allowed to even lie about an opponent — and then get caught in the act.

Yes, there have been recent campaigns in which incumbents were subjected to downright lies — state Sens. Joe Heck and Bob Beers, for example. But just because in one round of voting enough gullible voters possibly were swayed by the dirty tricks, that is no reason to jettison our free-wheeling, free-speech political donnybrooks for lace-glove treatment.

What one candidate says about another, says more about that person’s character than it says about his opponent. If we assume voters are too stupid to figure it out eventually, democracy is a failed experiment.