Well you do have the Q drop 818 that I posted that says libel laws would be the end of the MSM
I agree with Trump’s position that US libel laws should be more like the UK’s, in the US you have to prove what the media wrote about you led to damages vs in the UK the media has to prove what they wrote about you is true.
Also the losing party has to pay the others sides court fees, which would curb the more frivolous lawsuits IMO
https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media/donald-trump-sue-news-organizations/
October 24, 2016:
Donald Trump suggested in an interview Sunday that America’s protections for the press might go too far and that the country’s libel and slander laws would be better if they were changed to resemble the United Kingdom’s.
The Republican presidential nominee, whose path to the White House has been made more difficult by allegations of sexual misconduct, over which he has repeatedly threatened to sue, made the comments in an interview with a CBS affiliate in Miami after he was asked if there is “too much protection allowed in the First Amendment.”
“Well in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong,” Trump said. “Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it. And I think we should go to a system where if they do something wrong — I’m a big believer, tremendous believer of the freedom of the press, nobody believes it stronger than me — but if they make terrible, terrible mistakes and those mistakes are made on purpose to injure people, and I’m not just talking about me, I’m talking about anybody else, then yes, I think you should have the ability to sue them.”
Not exactly true. In the US, if you prove a lawsuit, but had no damages, you are always entitled to nominal damages, i.e., $1. Sometimes people want to sue on principal but suffered no damage. Wasn't there a case that Trump won where he only got $1? Or was that someone else I am thinking of?
I like the notion of loser pays, in libel and in all cases. Most cases are governed by state laws, and so you'd need 50 states to change their laws to accomplish that system.
Now, the big change that needs to be made, and that requires the Supreme Court to revisit its prior rulings (as Justice Thomas suggested) is to get rid of the extra requirements that have to be proven if the plaintiff is a public figure. The Court held that because the first amendment was so important, there needed to be special protections for the media from libel suits. So they decreed that with public figures, it has to be shown that the defendant had actual malice toward the person who was libeled. Printing false information wasn't enough. That was totally legislating from the bench. Get rid of that requirement, which does not exist in the UK, and the press will instantly become a lot more honest.