Comment by ImPostingOnHN

> as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it

I've never found that to be true, because most people recognize that the essay was once in which any of the points individually being correct would make for a persuasive essay. The addition of N examples only reinforces the point N times over.

Thus, any single argument being unconvincing to somebody isn't a huge issue, since all the points would have to be false for the essay to not ring true.

> curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic

That may be so (indeed, we see so in donald's ongoing efforts to limit others' right to redress), but imposing a higher standard for libel of public figures vs. private individuals isn't problematic.

> eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.

This strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy, and one that isn't very convincing in this case. The higher threshold for public figures than private individuals (which is the topic, not curtailment) already exists and has for a while, and the worst thing we've seen is the most public and powerful person in the world still trying to exploit libel law to attack political opponents. So the concern doesn't seem borne out in the data.