What I didn't describe was the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case. When you have publications, major TV networks

What I didn't describe was the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case. When you have publications, major TV networks, where almost literally every single piece they publish is filled with lies and manipulation it becomes an impossible task. A couple of years back I decided to highlight such lies to a group of people I was in regular online conversations with. Friends and people I have known for 20 to 30 years, not strangers. The effort and time required to research and gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate falsehoods in just one story per day was significant enough that I had to quit after a couple of months. Not to mention the fact that writing-up articles on these findings and then discussing them until people understood they had been lied to also consumed a ridiculous amount of time. The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it. Which, in turn, means people, over time, develop twisted narratives of reality that serve no useful purpose and do nothing but cause damage to society. The roughly 3.3 million people in the US who might be wiser or take the time to dig for the truth are powerless in rectifying the lies and manipulation. Refer to my feathers into the wind analogy on this last point. I sincerely doubt anyone would propose we should tolerate the level of lies and manipulation weaponized by mass media today. The difference with respect to 1807 is that everyone is now reachable via their phones and computers through myriad services, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube perhaps being the main culprits. I do concede and fully understand that this is an area of law that requires very careful consideration and a soft touch. There isn't a simple fix. I don't like the idea of saying "well, just litigate using existing law" because of then massive asymmetry between these large corporations and the people. This approach actually harms anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire. It would be almost impossible for the average Joe to go up against the major news sources except for the most egregious of cases (where a large law firm would take the case for a piece of the action). In other words, large news operators can utterly destroy your life and massively affect public perception and nothing ever happens to them. The simple proof of this is that they are full of lies today, which means they haven't been challenged and suffered enough financially to change their ways. Sometimes I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough. IANAL, so I don't know how that could be detrimental. As a lay person it makes complete sense: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the truthful press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."