Comment by endominus

So are you saying that victims (of slander) must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators (of slander) should be taken at their word?

The sword cuts both ways.

Except it doesn't, because if you're in the news for {serious crime} and later clear your name, your reputation is still probably trashed. There is no real mechanism for recovery in the modern panopticon. Lowering standards of evidence required for conviction (to basically nothing, if some people are taken seriously) is such a kludgy, cumbersome hack to solve this problem that it shocks me that people present it seriously. It's utopian thinking.