Comment by bjornsing
1 year ago
I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying.
For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have to prove you are not a rapist, under a balance of probabilities test. This is much harder than defending yourself from a criminal indictment, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor / victim. So what do you do? If you do go to court and fail to prove your innocence then there’s now an official document that essentially states you are a rapist.
No. You only need to prove that the other party recklessly claimed it without evidence.
The defence is the truth of the statement, or at least in its non-recklessness and that is provided by the party that is sued.
The American approach on this clearly works. There's a recent US case of defamation some dead children with clearly excessive fines, but that's also in the other direction.
Again, I think you’re oversimplifying. There’s nothing reckless about accusing someone of rape, even if the only proof you have is your own testimony under oath.