In other words, the truthfulness or accuracy of one's accusations should never be questioned - it's only the seriousness of the charge that matters here.
Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Hill. You may be seated.
That's a beautiful strawman, but a strawman nonetheless. "Irving's Law" as amended is intended to stifle any comparison of anti-Catholic hate speech to Jack Chick; it invites the reader to reject any counter-criticism of anti-Catholic hate speech out of hand.
YOU are the one who is saying the accuracy of certain accusations and criticisms should never be questioned, not me, for you suggest that if "Irving's Law" is violated, the post should be dismissed out of hand.
Question accusations all you want, but attempting to stifle any discussion is, well, a demonstration of the weakness of your position (at the very least).
It is also bogus and dishonorable. Have fun with that.