Replies

Maybe we just need Common Sense Regulations on Commercial Speech.

Of course, as with the gun laws, they would only apply to the private, law-abiding citizen regardless of the title or claimed intent (e.g. 'Commercial' speech).

Actually, we do need to revise the libel laws. In England (and in Common Law before our lawyers/judges corrupted it), the only thing need to 'win' a libel lawsuit was to show that the claim wasn't true, and that harm resulted. If that were the case today then a lot of the 'fake news' would go away - which would be a good thing.

However, in the US to win a libel lawsuit, you have to prove a thought crime. Specifically, you have to prove that the publisher had active 'malice' toward the harmed person, not that it just made a mistake (even a deliberate one) that harmed someone.

The equivalent in gun laws would be to say that you could shoot your gun down the street as long as they couldn't prove you actively hated the people who were hurt. US libel laws are that stupid.

So I hope they win the lawsuit because it was false and it harmed OANN. Ironically, in this case the 'intent' to harm seems easier to prove than the actual harm - which means the leftists would be better off if they were under English rather than US law.