[mikem170]

Not even if they are causing you real harm by lying?

Other countries don't allow as much of that as the U.S. does, like the U.K. for example [0]:

> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.

> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

[sneak]

Spreading negative implication and opinion about a third party is and should remain protected expression.

Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.

[mikem170]

> Spreading negative implication and opinion about a third party is and should remain protected expression.

In the U.K. it is. You can publish the truth, and you can publish your opinion. You can't publish lies.

For someone to sue you in the U.K. they need to prove loss, and there are two defences for libel - the truth, and what the solicitors call "fair comment". You can say that your experience of XXX was poor. You can't say XXX is an idiot.

> Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.

I grant that is a definitely problem. This gets talked about in the U.K. I can't say I've heard about it as much in the U.S., and to be frank I am a little surprised, as often those with money use the courts to get bully people. Just brainstorming, but maybe that's a big chunk of the problem?

But I can't help thinking about how much the internet has changed everything. Our laws were designed when people actually interacted with each other face to face and there were a handful of printing presses per town. Now everyone has a worldwide printing press in their pocket, and it's all archived on the wayback machine, etc. High stakes stuff, especially if you get on the wrong side of it. Anybody can be arrested, or have the bad luck to be harassed, and that follows you for years on the internet, looking for dates, looking for work, apartments, people at church, your kids friends, etc.

Maybe we could discuss not only what constitutes libel and the burden of proof, but also where we draw the line on private vs public speech. You can say anything to your family and friends in your house, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to post lies to the global internet. Maybe those are the rules while talking about a normal person who doesn't have a national or global internet presence, but the rules are different talking about a large company who does. Maybe publications are held to higher standards than individuals - they can play by the rules or don't play. Maybe something like dcma take-down notices for libel, so nobody is surprised with a lawsuit. These are just some ideas, more brainstorming.

Admittedly I don't know the judicial history behind lies being defended as free speech in the U.S., but it seems to me there are some interesting things to think about here.