3 ms·

This may sound a bit radical, but I'm not even sure I want the government stepping in and doing anything about libel. It's already true that you can't trust eve

This may sound a bit radical, but I'm not even sure I want the government stepping in and doing anything about libel. It's already true that you can't trust everything you read, and this includes articles from "official" journalism institutions. It does hurt to have your reputation damaged, though. That's a tradeoff that is a bit disconcerting, but may be worth it in order to have a more strict, black-and-white definition of what the government can and cannot censor. The more things that the government is legally able to censor, the more subjective freedom of speech becomes, and the more it gets in danger.

Lukeas14 15y ago
Defamation has always been an exception to free speech. It is also not a criminal offense so the government doesn't have the ability to use it for censorship. Cox is still free to write what she wants without repercussions from the government. Being a civil case all the plaintiff had to do was prove the defendant maliciously inflicted significant harm to his reputation in order to be awarded a monetary judgement.
- forensic 15y ago
  The real issue here is not so much the defamation, which happens all the time, but the nature of Google, which gives this lady a giant amplifier for no good reason.