burrrton wrote:Again, true, but it's also (arguably more so) because it's a tall order to prove legally, and exponentially so against public figures.
And we know this intuitively- "FAKE NEWS" (and its left-wing analog) would lead to near-infinite numbers of suits being filed across the nation if "libel" were so flippant a charge to be filed, right?
That's true for a lot of crimes. If I get a bogus speeding ticket in Seattle, I'm probably not going to contest it because I'd have to spend an entire day and a 500 mile round trip to go to court over it. I'll just pay the ticket.
And the reverse is also true. In another thread, someone wondered out loud why the LV police didn't charge Michael Bennett with slander by leveling false charges against them.
When you have so few cases that are actually pursued, it's pretty hard to tell how easy or difficult a charge is to prove. I'm sure that there are a lot of cases out there that would be successful if they were pursued. Personally, I wish there were more cases of libel and slander successfully prosecuted, hold people accountable for their words.