If you think about it, libel and slander laws are an imposition by the state on someone's freedom of speech even though we are talking about a civil action between nongovernmental agents. Those laws exist before the First Amendment and it in some applications and in some jurisdictions understood that libel and slander were not protected by that amendment. The
New York Times vs. Sullivan case raises the bar but only for public persons to prove slander or libel by requiring them to show malice.
The court justified this distinction in the application of libel and slander laws because it sought to protect robust debate where it counts most, on public issues which, presumably, are debated usually by public officials and public personas. A public person still has a right to collect if he can convince a jury that the utterance was not only false, and caused injury, but was malicious.
I don't have a problem with the way the court balanced these two competing interests of permitting individuals to protect their good name as well as encouraging robust public debate on public issues. I do have a problem when the person is barred from recovery by the very process which libels him.
Without going into a lengthy explanation of my own views, I think they’re close enough to yours to let it stand.
I want free speech. If a guy is doing something wrong, scream it to the high heavens. It’s truth. It’s not actionable.
If I as a campaign manager devise a plan to out the other candidate as a child molester in a devious manner when it is not true, then I should be placed in prison for a long long time.
I don’t want to place a chill on free discussion, but malice is malice and the public should not be refused the right to vote for a good man.
Slander in this instance is a violation of personal rights and public rights. It’s destructive to the process. We should view is as more devious than vote fraud, because it turns a election on it’s head nullifying many potential votes.
Thanks for the comments.