Comment by cgriswald
6 days ago
Civil defamation laws could equally be used to undermine freedom of the press. In any case, the 'can of worms' you are talking about was the state of affairs in the UK until 2009 and is currently the case in several US states and yet somehow we still have people in those states openly criticizing a sitting president.
Rather than throwing our hands in the air, maybe we could expect our governments to craft laws in such a way that we can punish people for willful lies resulting in death while still preserving our right to free speech and the press.
The UK already has extremely strong defamation laws, to the point where we attract "libel tourism" - foreigners find dubious excuses to bring their libel cases to the UK courts so that they have an easier chance of winning.
Lots of people in my replies are telling me that I'm wrong, but no-one has yet answered my question: what specifically should the government do?
That’s because your question appears rhetorical. You had already come to the conclusion that governments couldn’t or shouldn’t do anything.
What could be done: (1) Stronger penalties, perhaps tied to proportionate burdens of proof. (2) Criminal penalties.
A weak burden of proof with mediocre penalties is just a cost of doing business.