There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements.
In fact courts adjudicate the difference pretty much anytime someone brings a defamation suit. If you are unable to tell the difference, you can conduct this (potentially costly) experiment to see that other humans can usually tell the difference.
1. Find a civil litigation lawyer in your city. Let's call her Alice A. Attorney.
2. Take out an add in your local newspaper that says "Alice A. Attorney's mama is so fat that she gave Dracula diabetes."
3. Take out another add the next week that says "Alice A. Attorney is not a US citizen so her license to practice law is invalid. In addition she is untrustworthy because she embezzled money from her previous employer."
4. Wait and see which ad you're eventually forced to pay damages because of.
> There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements.
Not as much as you'd like it to be. In court, surely, maybe, though in court to get anything actionable you have to prove actual malice, which is not easy, and very very hard if one talks about a public figure.
If you are just shooting breeze on the internet, it would be super-hard to prove any malicious intent.
But that's what we're talking in courtroom. A place specifically designed to have procedures to rule between true and false. Most people outside of the courtroom do not behave like this. They won't apply "lack of reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" if they see an article trashing Trump (or Hillary, if you swing that way) on the internet. They won't research and double-triple-check the sources and quotes. They'd just share it because it feels good.
>though in court to get anything actionable you have to prove actual malice, which is not easy,
Actual malice is only required if it's a public figure being defamed.
>and very very hard if one talks about a public figure.
It's not any harder to prove actual malice when the person being defamed is a public figure than if the person being defamed is not a public figure. It's just only required if the person being defamed is a public figure.
>If you are just shooting breeze on the internet, it would be super-hard to prove any malicious intent.
I think you clearly missed the point of my previous post. It wasn't to try to prove to you that people spreading fake news are committing actionable defamation.
The point is that reasonable people are capable of distinguishing between fake news stories and farcical insults.
Saying that Obama is an idiot is an insult. Saying that Obama was born in Kenya because you have investigators on the ground in Hawaii who found evidence that his birth certificate is a fraud is almost definitely defamation (even though it would be difficult to prove that you acted with malice).
A large percentage of Trump supporters literally believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. They literally believe that he ordered Air Force One to pick up his dog. They literally believe that his mother-in-law gets a lifetime pension.
Sure it's possible that none of them actually believe these things in their heart of hearts, but if you ask them, they'll tell you they do. To an external observer they appear in every way to literally believe these things--if there is no externally detectable difference, is there a difference.
In fact courts adjudicate the difference pretty much anytime someone brings a defamation suit. If you are unable to tell the difference, you can conduct this (potentially costly) experiment to see that other humans can usually tell the difference.
1. Find a civil litigation lawyer in your city. Let's call her Alice A. Attorney.
2. Take out an add in your local newspaper that says "Alice A. Attorney's mama is so fat that she gave Dracula diabetes."
3. Take out another add the next week that says "Alice A. Attorney is not a US citizen so her license to practice law is invalid. In addition she is untrustworthy because she embezzled money from her previous employer."
4. Wait and see which ad you're eventually forced to pay damages because of.