> IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless.

> IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless. This is the POV of a lawyer who understands how the legal system works and can (financially) afford to sue. > If they don't make up for the damage people cause, the easy way to remedy that is to up the remedies until they do. If both parties lack resources, you can't really receive damages comparable to a reputation destroying event. Tor has a financial pot big enough to actually pay damages if these accusations were malicious AND false. However, iirc, Tor is based out of the US and the standard is malice. Tor is clearly not being actively malicious and being honestly mistaken would still be enough to destroy someone's reputation. Now, in this case, I'm pretty sure Jacob has the financial resources to sue for slander but since its pretty clear its not a malicious act on Tor's part...its a fool's errand and his reputation will remain destroyed. Now, its quite possible that such destruction is deserved given this was an independent 3rd party, my problem is with your proposed solution if it was false. Slander laws and "increased penalties" are not an effective solution.