Crimson: It has been written of the "emling" effect that the rise of libel suits is having on the aggressiveness of the press.

Simons: I think that's absolutely true. I think small newspapers in particular. I know what of I speak because I own one... You can be a small newspaper and wipe out your entire margin of profit in one year, especially if you're a very small newspaper, just trying to defend yourself in the legal process. So you do hesitate, or hang back...

Crimson: On the other hand, as Mr. Lewis raised recently, what effect does it have on the press to have a rule that limits its responibility for printing falsehoods? In Great Britain, for instance, there are much more stringent libel laws on the theory. I guess, that accuracy is what counts.

Lewis: It's the theory that Howard's friend Harry Evens, former ed for of the Sunday Times of London has said. "I don't want to have an easier libel law. Its a necessary discipline for us to have this tough law."

Simons: Which very few Americans would agree with.

Crimson: Do you agree with it?

Simons: No, absolutely not I like the system we have now and wish we could improve it. One way would be to get rid of law professors (laughter)

Crimson: What about that rule don't you like?

Simons: I think the press has to be as free as possible.

Nesson: Is it your sense that the English press is much less aggressive than the American press

Simons: Oh absolutely No question in my mind

Lewis: I agree Much less aggressive

Crimson: And that aggresion is worth the freedom given the press?

Nesson: ...It is certainly worth a lot It is our First Amendment tradition and it is in large part what the United States is all about. If the question is should it play itself out in just the way it has played itself out in American libel law, I have tremendous questions about it. At this stage, there are two features of the American libel law which play together to produce a corrupt litigation situation...On the one side, one side has the ability to inquire into virtually the state of mind with which the article was written. The concept of actual malice has been played out this way, which means that a party in our litigation system has the ability to depocket the other side by exhaustively inquiring and putting the other side to the expense of depositions and so forth. It works just the other way around as well, because the way the defense of truth works, the other side has the reciprocal ability to inquire into the plaintiff in depth to try and establish whatever they said was true. It becomes a game of who can depocket the other side rather than a process of truly trying to vindicate some legitimate interest.

Simons: Who's at fault in this process?