Good guys want to expand the scope of the defamation law. Bad guys don’t. You can see them lining up on each side.
MYOB and stay out of Florida every chance you get.
I can’t wait ‘till this guy tries to campaign and finally realizes how absolutely irrelevant and disliked he really is.
Let’s first see how the law is written.
Really? I want to abolish defamation law.
Defamation law does NOT benefit "good guys." It benefits Deep Pockets. A Deep Pocket can afford to sue for defamation, and defend against defamation, whether he's good or bad.
A poor or middle class person can't afford a lawsuit. Can't sue for defamation. Can't defend if he's falsely charged.
Now, think about it. Say you post a true accusation, or opinion, against a Deep Pocket. He threatens to sue you unless you remove the post. You might win, but only after a long legal battle, costing you tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. Most people will probably cave and remove the post.
Likewise, if a poor or middle class person is defamed, he HAS to sue or else people might believe the accusation. Whereas if defamation were legal, nobody would believe any accusation without proof, because anyone can say anything.
Walter Block makes an excellent for abolishing defamation in his libertarian classic, Defending the Undefendable.
The ADL has been trying to expand the scope of defamation law for decades. You trust the ADL?
The ADL is upset that the First Amendment prohibits laws against "group defamation." That is, you can't be sued for defaming a group (e.g., Jews, Muslims, blacks, gays, trannies, etc.).
The ADL would like to make "anti-Semitic" statements liable to defamation lawsuits. Of course, such an expansion would allow any "group" to sue for defamation (though I doubt such laws would be interpreted strictly when defaming whites or Christians).