Maybe so, but the US version could still stand to be upgraded.
Why is it so hard for public figures or politicians to sue for damages?
Why is someone excused for relaying defamatory/slanderous rumors about someone just because they heard it from someone else? No responsibility to double-check sources?
Why is there no protection against evil journalists who create the idea of a "harmful group" in the public eye, and then associate a person with that group? It completely short-circuits libel protections.
Why is it so hard for targets that the legacy media paint as public figures to sue for damages. You could be a nobody high-school kid one day and a "public figure" the next.
Right, another short-circuit of the law. I assume Nick Sandman is a public figure now because they made him one, so he'd have trouble suing if something like that happened again.
Maybe so, but the US version could still stand to be upgraded.
Why is it so hard for public figures or politicians to sue for damages?
Why is someone excused for relaying defamatory/slanderous rumors about someone just because they heard it from someone else? No responsibility to double-check sources?
Why is there no protection against evil journalists who create the idea of a "harmful group" in the public eye, and then associate a person with that group? It completely short-circuits libel protections.
Why is it so hard for targets that the legacy media paint as public figures to sue for damages. You could be a nobody high-school kid one day and a "public figure" the next.
Right, another short-circuit of the law. I assume Nick Sandman is a public figure now because they made him one, so he'd have trouble suing if something like that happened again.