I don’t know. Why can’t he say anything, if there is the slightest chance it is true? If we are going to say you can’t say something which the media hasn’t published evidence of, you are giving the government and tech giants the power to decide what can and can’t be said about everything.
Has everybody here seen the video of the father laughing with other people, going to the podium, and doing what really did look like an actor’s preparation for producing an emotion? Even more interesting, go to youtube and try to find the video, which the powers that be have decided to hide. Here is the latest post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_r3D6AU_4
The guy could be legit, I’ve learned to not assume I know the entire truth about anything lately. But that looked weird as hell, and the tech giants have taken measures to hide it.
I’d say let everyone make every case, and let the people decide. This looks to me like a great way to make sure no sheep speak out too loudly with ideas which could be controversial.
Can I call up your boss and tell him you're stealing from the company? Can I call up the police and say that there's kiddie porn on your computer? I mean, there might be the slightest chance that those are true.
The law in the U.S. is-- and has been since the Founding-- that you are civilly liable if you say something about someone which is false and hurts their reputation. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes the defendant has to prove that what he said is true and sometimes the plaintiff has to prove it's false. Additionally, under current law (which Justice Thomas disagrees with) there are some cases in which the plaintiff also has to prove that the defendant knew what he was saying was false, or at least said it recklessly. But "there is the slightest chance that it's true" isn't a defense to defamation.