[nerdponx]

It might be standard, but it's a strange standard if you're not a legal professional.

How many people have to believe something before you either find at least one reasonable person among their ranks, or before you realize that the world is so full of unreasonable people that it makes no sense as a legal test?

[Sacho]

Sure, I get how it sounds weird. But how would you amend this standard to catch the bad people like Sidney Powell, while also allowing critique of powerful, wealthy individuals and corporations? The defamation defense(and it's related anti-SLAPP laws) have been refined over years of public discourse against snake oil salesmen and big corps trying to hide their dirty laundry. If you don't allow people to say something along the lines of: "here's my source, here's what conclusions I draw from it"(the essence of Powell's defense), then how would you allow speech critical of bad businesses?

Keep in mind, you can make anything sound ridiculous with some writing skills. How about an alternate headline - "Dominion tries to silence people claiming flaws in their voting system"?

[ggm]

Her claims went beyond flaw to alleging collusion. I kind of get your point, but I don't see her defence as a lay down misere compared to Tucker Carlson. She filed paper in the court. If she was speaking to her filings, wasn't she misleading the court?