>>I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth. There is, and the 1st amendment's coverage of Parody/Sa

>>I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth. There is, and the 1st amendment's coverage of Parody/Satire is very well documented. The Onion has always made it clear that it's fake news, Infowars fought tooth and nail to say they're allowed to say their "truth" even if it's harmful lies. When you can prove that someone believes the damaging bullshit they're saying (not always easy!) they get their dick kicked in. To your other point, "a well-financed bad actor could ruin any business with enough SLAPP lawsuits" falls away because anti-SLAPP laws exist and award damages if you push too hard. Do perfectly good people get ruined through litigation? Sure. Is it the epidemic that grifters trying to sway public opinion in their favor make it out to be? Highly unlikely.