[Just mythoughts]

Say the following was written about you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-isnt-todays-wendell-willkie-hes-todays-benito-mussolini/2015/12/08/77c81b0c-9ddc-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html

[dschapin]

That is fair game in politics and has been ever since the beginning. If someone writes something that is unfair about you then you refute it. The only time that you can sue is that if someone has written something that is provably false and you can show that it was done with malicious intent. If you take those protections away then you radically chill free speech. This is serious stuff guys.

[katana]

And how would you react if this idea was floated by Obama, Clinton, Reid, or Pelosi? See, the problem with changing a law to benefit someone you trust is it's also changed for someone you can't trust. Denying someone the freedom to call Trump a new Mussolini (an opinion, by the way, that I don't share. He reminds me much more of Juan Peron) means the freedom to call Hillary Clinton a criminal psychotic power hungry neo-Stalinist ugly shrew would also be subject to legal sanction. Any speculation about Harry Reid's ties to organized crime would be libelous. And mention Obama's frolics in Chicago bathhouses? Forget it.

To paraphrase the old saying about God and killing in combat, allow it all to be said and let the listeners sort it out.

[Republican Wildcat]

Then he should write his own article to refute it.

And however misguided someone’s opinion may be, it is still their opinion and they have a right to express it. That is a fundamental freedom. No one should be sued over their opinion. You honestly don’t believe that should ever be the case, do you? That is a very tyrannical and downright frightening prospect you have proposed here.