I don't disagree with what you're saying; but the problem sounds more like one of execution than of principle. The US has way too many bad restraints on speech

I don't disagree with what you're saying; but the problem sounds more like one of execution than of principle. The US has way too many bad restraints on speech for the wrong reasons; and not enough weaker limitations for more objective reasons. Personally, I think libel laws around are still way too strong in the US; and misguided to start with - but to the extent that they target not merely negative but factually false statements - probably not a bad idea. Just - the legal system should not be involved; not even as a last recourse. It's just way too slow and heavy-handed. We need something much, much lighter; consider e.g. the consequences imposed by a downvote on HN or stackoverflow: not exactly a lot, but still not entirely without effect. Something mild and focused explicitly not on opinion (so not like HN/SO ;-)) but merely on falsehoods would be much less harmful that what we have now, and much more beneficial too.