I think the standards in the law are pretty clear: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" for criminal law, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil law. Most of th

I think the standards in the law are pretty clear: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" for criminal law, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil law. Most of the instances I've seen that I really care about fall very far in the clear of those standards: - My local school administration lies for political benefit and to "manage" parents. That's 100% legal right now. It shouldn't be. - A stalker is spreading false rumors about me. That's illegal, but would require a massively expensive litigation to bring within control. - A local elite university fabricates data to support professor startups. That's at the edge of legal. It should be illegal. ... and so on. If we had effective enforcement for stuff that's NOT in the gray zone, I'd be pretty happy. As for the who-killed-JFK, fake moon landing, area 51, etc. type conspiracies, I think those should generally fall under free speech. If you can document a news network is intentionally fabricating conspiracies for ratings and money, that another matter, but if it's a crazy uncle in tin foil hats? He might be crazy, but that shouldn't be illegal. And ultimately, I think people ought to be able to discuss conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracies. I've seen a few, and most aren't things the public ever finds out about. There are: - Actual conspiracies, which generally do a lot of harm. - Conspiracy theories, most of which are unfounded. There's little (but not zero) correlation between the two. Ultimately, though, uncovering actual conspiracies requires wading through fake ones too. If the conspiracy comes from a fake news network where there's _documentation_ that they're intentionally lying? That's a different story. And yes, I know most won't get caught. But even if a few do, market incentive structures change dramatically, especially for larger organizations.