> That's what courts are for. It isn't, courts determine if a certain standard of evidence has been reached. One of the more ingenious parts of the UK-descende

> That's what courts are for. It isn't, courts determine if a certain standard of evidence has been reached. One of the more ingenious parts of the UK-descended legal systems is they take a very philosophical stance on the actual state of reality. The judges and juries are discouraged from any attempt at making reference to the real world, expected instead to adjudicate between two funhouse-mirror interpretations of reality presented by professional advocates. That is one of the underpinnings of free speech, in fact. We have free speech because there is no way to determine if a statement aligns with reality or not end especially not the motivations of the person making it. If we had a method for that - be it courts or a sensor or a logical technique or whatever - then free speech would be highly undesirable. We could just ban lies.