1
0

[–] HelluvaEngineer 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

So you suggest we just allow people to make fake accusations willy-nilly and woe be it to the person they're accusing? That's not fair or just, and it's not infringing on the person's first amendment rights. The first amendment protects your right to speak up about what you wish to without fear of recourse due to the nature of your opinion, but it does not allow you to wield your opinion to incite violence or wrongfully hurt another person, which would be infringing upon their (the accused's) rights. Having an opinion does not mean you get to destroy other people with it.

0
0

[–] corsairio ago  (edited ago)

Freedom of speech means that I can say anything I want so long as I'm not infringing another person's natural right. Not having people incite violence against me is also not something that is just naturally not going to happen. People can do that without anything happening to me. It's only when they are unjustly violent when I become violated.

Beyond that, from a pragmatic point of view, libel law is always used by the establishment to hush up dissent, be it in business or otherwise.

0
0

[–] Benanov ago 

I think that's really naïve. Libel (and slander) does damage reputationally and monetarily - which is why it's a big thing in tort law.

A method of redress using court system on presenting falsehoods as the truth that damages someone's reputation is not an infringement of 1A rights.

Remember, the truth is an affirmative defense against libel in the US. (It's not in the UK.)