[g-b-r]

Those statements are lies if there is, or at a certain point surfaces, enough evidence that the person uttering them was not expressing an opinion but intentionally lying.

If there isn't enough evidence nothing happens (not even investigations).

And the person determining whether to prosecute, the standards of proof etc. are the same as those for any other crime to which politicians can be subjected.

The risks of people "taking control of the institutions" are just the same as with the other crimes applicable to politicians; again you seem to be arguing for general immunity for politicians more than against this specific proposal

[HideousKojima]

Well then there's no nicer way to put this, you're utterly naive about how political and legal systems work the whole world over. I'm not arguing for immunity for politicians, if I had my way all politicians would be launched into the sun (though they'd be quickly replaced by yet more politicians).

I'm arguing that a law like you're proposing will inevitably be enforced unequally, be enforced against people who spoke unpopular truths that powerful people claimed were legally lies, and will be used by powerful interests to suppress their enemies. This isn't pessimism, this is a "this has happened anytime this or anything similar to it has been tried" and anyone with the most basic understanding of human nature could see that.

[g-b-r]

I'm not sure if you understand the difference between saying something false and lying.

Do you have some example where "this or anything similar to it has been tried" ?

In countries with poor institutions anyhow, powerful people don't need this law to suppress their enemies, any existing law applicable to politicians can be used!

If I'm utterly naive with no understanding of human nature though we could just stop it here.