It could not have been that long after humans worked out how to speak, and then how to use symbols to write down words, that slander, and its sister, libel, came along.And it is likely that punishments and remedies for this kind of behavior did not take much longer to be invented, so much does society frown on the idea of damaging people’s reputations through lies and falsehoods.That, essentially, is what libel is: Untrue written statements that damage the personal or professional reputation of an individual. Slander refers to similar verbal statements.And it does not matter how many people read the untruth. One will do, although the damage to an individual is clearly greater if the false allegations are widely circulated and, importantly, believed.Today, most libel actions are almost always decided in the civil courts, and when a person is found to have committed libel, damages are assessed and paid to the victim.But many Criminal Codes did, and some still do, carry the offence of libel as a crime, publishable by imprisonment.It is rarely used and was abolished in Britain in 1910. It remains a law in Bermuda, and until now, was last used against this newspaper when the late Julian Hall brought a complaint. That resulted in the arrest of the then-Editor, David L. White. The prosecution was unsuccessful.Nonetheless, the fact that defamation is still considered to be a crime as opposed to a matter for the civil courts where lawsuits can be brought and if libel is proved, damages assessed, is a travesty.The simple fact is that holding or stating an opinion, even when it is wrongly held, should never be a crime. The right to have and to state an opinion is the lifeblood of democracy because only then can there be a free and frank exchange of ideas.That, presumably, will be the thrust of lawyer Charles Richardson’s case when he and his lawyer, Craig Attridge, seek to have the prosecution against him overturned on the basis that the crime is unconstitutional.No doubt it will be argued that the mere threat of imprisonment regardless of the rarity of its application creates an unacceptable restriction on freedom of speech. This is a law that was designed at a time when rulers of countries exercised absolute power. Only dictators determined to quell all dissent can have a use for a law like this.Clearly, there will be a lengthy argument on this matter when it is brought to the Supreme Court, and given the gravity of the case, it may not end there, but could be appealed further.And this is not the time or place to argue the merits of the case actually brought against Mr Richardson by Det Insp Robert Cardwell. There will be time for that, either in Magistrates’ Court, or as a civil matter.But if the appeal to have the charge overturned on constitutional grounds fails, there is nothing to stop Parliament repealing this section. Indeed, this could be done when Parliament resumes in a few weeks. Then a prosecution would be pointless.And it does not mean that Det Insp Cardwell has no legal avenue to pursue if he feels he has been wronged. He can still bring a civil action. That was the right course at the beginning and it is the right course now.