David Schwartz talked about Defamation and the First Amendment

Выделяемые по инициативе UBRI средства являются благотворительностью: Технический директор Ripple ответил на критику в Сети

Ripple CTO David Schwartz talked about Defamation and the First Amendment.

Ripple CTO David Schwartz on twitter talked about Defamation and the First Amendment. He noted:

Defamation and the First Amendment, a:
1) Sometimes you’ll have an issue of great public importance where only one side risks lawsuits for defamatino. Trump is/isn’t a liar. Biden does/doesn’t suffer from dementia. Craig Wright is/isn’t Satoshi.
2) And if defamation laws aren’t sensitive to this, the net effect is that the government will put a huge thumb on the scales for these issues of great public importance.
3) The side that has no fear of libel can respond passionately, immediately, and with exaggerations. It can say things it cannot back up with facts. It can lie with impunity.
4) The side that fears libel has to think carefully before everything it says. They have to couch their statements with weasel words. They may just prefer not to risk saying anything at all because civil liability can be ruinous even if you win.
5) A great example of this is the litigation against Peter McCormack. Craig Wright does *not* have to prove that he is Satoshi to win this lawsuit. He just has to prove that Peter McCormack said something that seriously harmed him.
6) Peter McCormack could win by proving Craig is not Satoshi. But Peter can no more prove Craig is not Satoshi than I can prove I never murdered anyone in Mexico.
7) Civil judgments are government punishment. They are really not that different from criminal liability except that they are easier to get because you don’t need a prosecutor’s buy in and you don’t have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
8) Just as the govermnent could suppress criticism by making criticizing the government a crime, the goverment can do so even better by letting government officials use goverment courts to impose ruinous civil liability on those who criticize the government.
9) That’s why the United States correctly recognizes the need to *massively* neuter defamation suits, particulary on issues of great public importance. While the United States does this better than most countries (I’m looking at you, UK), there is still a huge problem.
10) Even if you win a defamation suit, civil litigation can still be ruinous. Litigation costs easily get into the six figure range. Wealthy plaintiffs can defame with impunity and poor defendants can be intimidated into silence.
11) But my point here is that bad defamation law and bad civil procedure can act as a thumb on the scales, distorting the debate on important issues of great public importance.
12) While defamation is sometimes described as an “exception” to the First Amendment, the First Amendment significantly affects defamation litigation in the United States and rightfully so.
13) In RAV v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court said the government “has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules”, but the connection between money and justice still does just that. end/

He also added:

(For those outside of the United States, the government is doing precisely that to people who want to debate whether Craig Wright is or isn’t Satoshi. Craig can lie with complete impunity. Peter cannot tell the truth unless he can prove a negative.)