|
|
|
|
|
|
by perihelions
491 days ago
|
|
|
Fair question. Because there's no meaningfully deterrent penalty for a meritless defamation claim, and the costs and consequences of going to court are highly asymmetric—to the hard-working surgeon in a bloody white coat; as opposed to the lawfare attorney who performs barratry for a living. It's in the public interest to proactively defend freedom of speech, particularly that of people who have important things to say (i.e. physicians who witness gross insurer abuses), from the speech-chilling effects of a dysfunctional and unjust tort system. I'm not a lawyer or defamation law expert, so I will quote a person who is both: - "I don’t know if this doctor lied about United Healthcare. I do know if I had unlimited money and no scruples and wanted to bully people into silence, Claire Locke would be a top choice to hire." –Ken White https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lhhgk5oh... |
|
|