> Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied

> Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon Regarding slander and libel: The appellant wasn't charged with any sort of defamation. Criminal defamation has been quite thoroughly ruled unconstitutional. In the civil context, defamation in general requires one to have knowingly made a false statement with reckless disregard of the truth. You also have to prove that it damaged you in some material way. (Intentional infliction of emotional distress is very, very difficult to prove.) The bar is even higher if it's against a public figure or a so-called "limited-purpose public figure" adding the requirement of actual malice. So I'd say the requirements for civil defamation are already quite strict. (IANAL)