[aaronblohowiak]

Seems like a promise to defend one's public identity from attack. Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not on the accused.

[danielweber]

In science, maybe.

But in American courts, if I call you a dog-fornicator, you generally have to prove to the court you aren't a dog-fornicator to get damages. (Plus a bunch of other stuff, like actual damages, unless it's per-se defamation, except if . . . . There's a lot that could be added to this, hence my "generally.")

[mikeash]

If you're attempting to get damages, then you are the accuser, and naturally the burden of proof falls on you.

[baddox]

> in American courts, if I call you a dog-fornicator, you generally have to prove to the court you aren't a dog-fornicator to get damages.

To get damages? That's another issue. In American courts, the accused would not have to prove to the court that they aren't a dog fornicator. The prosecution has to prove you the accused is guilty.