Excellent insight.
You’ve really thought this through.
It's clear that you haven't! For one thing, you are conflating fair use with defamation, which is nonsense on stilts. For another, you seem to be defending defamation as a good thing. And eventually, even if defamation is a good thing, you haven't illuminated what the legal standard should be or might be if relaxed from the NYT v Sullivan standard. You also haven't distinguished between "publishing" and "remarking."
The only thing your piece is good for, it to assess your worth as a commentator.