I think the issue is that it's harder to tease apart why you want to harm the business. Sure, you might say "they screwed me over, and I want to hurt them", but maybe you're lying, and it's really "they're of a race I don't like, and I want to hurt them" or even just "the owner was rude to me, and I want to hurt them". Those aren't defensible reasons to publicly attack someone, or their business.
But if you claim that you just want to protect future potential customers from having a bad experience, that shows some level of emotional detachment from the experience that you yourself had, and makes it seem more likely that you're being reasonable instead of just lashing out, and possibly exaggerating or even lying.
Certainly this isn't an iron-clad, 100% reliable heuristic, but it's not terrible.
And on a higher level, I think we just need more positive process in the world. Trying to protect others is positive; getting revenge is negative. Revenge serves no useful purpose, and often the revenge seeker doesn't really find what they're looking for (emotionally) after getting revenge. It's just toxic all around. Now, that shouldn't be a legal consideration, I don't think, but from a social/society standpoint, maybe it's important.
I think that the standard should be on whether you made false harmful statements, and not whether you accidentally or nobly made harmful false statements, with little or no focus on mens rea.
If I said that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims are false, does it really matter if I'm trying to protect other people but in the process I destroy a decent business? Alternatively, if I truthfully claim that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims are true, does it matter what my emotional underpinnings are? Our attention should be on whether harm was justified from verifiable facts and not on the flimsy assessment of individual psychology.
Perhaps we find out that the Twitter whistleblower wants to harm the business because they're angry at Twitter's relationship to society. With a broad slate of issues to worry about, should we be directing our finite attention to the truthiness and weightiness of claims as verifiable by facts, or should we be focusing on individual psychology?
> If I said that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims are false, does it really matter if I'm trying to protect other people but in the process I destroy the a decent business?
Yes, it matters.
The mental state limitations in (for instance) US law on defamation are about where the higher value of freedom of expression trumps the concerns motivating defamation law, which is why defamation requires at least simple negligence, and in some cases has a more stringent mens rea element.
> Alternatively, if I truthfully claim that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims are true, does it matter what my emotional underpinnings are?
Well, no, and that's why falsehood is also a required element.
As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil matter, why should we desire mens rea? Why ought the search for relief hinge on whether someone was noble as opposed to whether they spoke falsely and harmfully? Every other person in society feels they are righteous in their mind.
> I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral culpability in my reading,
You may not find it in the state statute, because it is a federal Constitutional limitation grounded in the First Amendment. See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
> As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil matter, why should we desire mens rea?
Because Constitutional limits on government power (except those specifically by their own terms tied to criminal law) affect all uses of government power, including providing civil remedies through the judiciary.
People freely expressing honest views without failing some legal duty of care cannot be punished in a society where from of expression is viewed as a fundamental right.
> (c) So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood which injures a private individual and whose substance makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. Pp. 418 U. S. 347-348.
> 2. The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than the New York Times test may recover compensation only for actual injury. Pp. 418 U. S. 348-350.
What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault. I don't really have an opinion on extra punitive damages, just really focusing on whether parties ought be able to seek relief for demonstrated harms despite any noble intentions.
> What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault.
No, what it says is: States can set their own rules as long as (1) they do not assign any defamatiom liability without fault [negligence being the minimal standard of fault, “So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability”; emphasis added] and (2) they allow only actual damages for defamation unless the standard is at least the much higher actual malice standard set forth for any defamation about public figures in New York Times v Sullivan [“The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth”].
This idea of "harm" is actually a really big issue in many current societies (at least Canada and United States) .
There is no monetary value of "harm" unless there is a claim of financial loss. But those financial losses are often future presumed customers, the company essentially claims a right to future revenue. However if an injustice has been done to the customer the company rightfully should lose future revenue.
I agree with you about ego driven revenge. But in fact to allow a bad actor to perpetuate is actually injustice and good people at lease care about, if not act to prevent, injustice.
Just like (IANAL) most court items, the fact of the matters matters most, the intent is mostly about modifying the consequences.
EDIT: this idea of "harm" is also what allows rights holders to go after Pirates by claiming that every download is a lost sale, which is clearly not true.
But if you claim that you just want to protect future potential customers from having a bad experience, that shows some level of emotional detachment from the experience that you yourself had, and makes it seem more likely that you're being reasonable instead of just lashing out, and possibly exaggerating or even lying.
Certainly this isn't an iron-clad, 100% reliable heuristic, but it's not terrible.
And on a higher level, I think we just need more positive process in the world. Trying to protect others is positive; getting revenge is negative. Revenge serves no useful purpose, and often the revenge seeker doesn't really find what they're looking for (emotionally) after getting revenge. It's just toxic all around. Now, that shouldn't be a legal consideration, I don't think, but from a social/society standpoint, maybe it's important.