punisher.  Persons  convicted  of  criminal  libel  can  be fined, imprisoned or both, depending on the gravity of the offense. Any  libel  that  tends  to  disturb  public  peace  and order can be a criminal offense. For instance, if a popular public figure were to be libeled to the extent that riots resulted,   the   libel   would   be   of   a   criminal   nature. Obscene  libel  can  be  a  criminal  offense  because  it  is considered to have an ill effect on public morals. One  of  the  most  grave  types  of  criminal  libel  is seditious  libel  —  that  which  defames  an  established government, or one of its agents, in an attempt to thwart or  overthrow  it.  Criminal  libel,  if  directed  at  the  U.S. government, becomes a federal offense and can result in a long prison term for the libeler. Seditious libel is rare,   but   it   has   occurred   in   cases   when   news organizations   or   individuals   have   written   violent defamations  of  the  government  in  their  opposition  to federal  laws  or  the  decrees  of  federal  courts.  Mere opposition to a court decree is not necessarily libelous (though it could be seditious). Remember, there is no libel involved until there is defamation. DEFENSES AGAINST LIBEL ACTION An   individual,   a   newspaper   or   other   news organization is not without some degree of protection when  being  sued  for  libel.  In  the  following  text,  we cover   some   of   the   partial   and   complete   defense strategies   that   might   lessen   the   damages   assessed against a defendant in a libel suit. Partial Defenses There are eight basic partial defenses against libel action, as covered in the following text. INNOCENT MISTAKE/ACCIDENT.— The first mitigating  factor  to  consider  is  innocent  mistake,  or accident, which appears in the libel codes of most states. Almost self-explanatory, it means that a defendant can be  excused  partially  if  it  can  be  proved  the  libelous material was published unintentionally or without the publisher  realizing  it  was  defamatory.  The  “innocent mistake” law does not remove liability, but it may reduce it. RETRACTION,   APOLOGY   OR   CORREC- TION.—  A  retraction,  apology  or  correction,  usually printed   with   the   same   prominence   as   the   original libelous material, will sometimes satisfy a person who claims  to  have  been  libeled.  Nevertheless,  the  libeled party  still  retains  the  right  to  bring  suit.  Although retractions, apologies and corrections are three separate (partial) defenses, they are related and often overlap. A retraction is often accompanied by a correction when it is employed, and both, almost always, are accompanied by  an  apology.  One  disadvantage  of  a  retraction,  or apology, is that it puts the original defamatory remark before  the  public  eye  again,  although  hopefully,  in  a much nicer form. An  example  to  the  contrary  is  this  story  about  a southern  editor  of  a  few  years  ago:  The  editor  was bitterly opposed by certain people in the town and did not hesitate to become quite harsh on them in print. One man  insisted  he  had  been  libeled  and  demanded  a retraction. The next issue of the paper appeared with the following line in large type: JOHN GREEN IS NOT A BRAYING ASS In that example the editor successfully and wittily continued his feud; but regrettably, he also compounded the  original  libel. REPETITION.— The defense of repetition can be used when a newspaper uses a libelous story that has been  printed  elsewhere,  in  a  wire  service  article  for example.  In  a  number  of  recent  court  decisions, newspapers   were   not   held   responsible   for   libels committed by wire services, since it was recognized that editors  could  not  possibly  check  out  every  story received from those sources. LACK  OF  MALICE.—  In  the  lack  of  malice defense, punitive damages are usually not awarded if the publisher  can  demonstrate  good  faith  and  justifiable ends. SELF-DEFENSE/REPLY.—   A  self-defense  or reply   defense   can   sometimes   be   successful   if   the publisher can show that the libel was a response to a previous attack made by the person claiming libel. UNCONTRADICTED  RUMOR.—   The  uncon- tradicted rumor defense can sometimes serve to lessen the damages that could be awarded in a libel case if the publisher can show that the libel was merely a published version of widely circulated rumors that the plaintiff had made no effort to deny. USE OF AUTHORITY.—  In employing the use of authority defense, a publisher would try to show that the libel originated from a source that could reasonably be expected to be accurate. A successful presentation of this defense,  while  not  exonerating  the  publisher,  could serve to lessen the damages awarded. 10-5