If you look at it the other way around, it's currently a supressor's paradise. If you say something I don't like, I can sue you and you have to prove that every tiny detail of what you said is factual. Most people aren't going to be checking the dictionary definition of every word they speak or write just to check that they're being 100% factual. So therefore the person suppressing their speech will most likely win. The rest of the world likes to be a bit more sensible, it's up to the claimant to show that the information was incorrect, for things that actually matter this will be relatively easy to do.
Free speech with a few people getting away with a bit of name calling vs supression of valid points due to tiny mistakes in delivery. I know which one I'd rather have.
> If you say something I don't like, I can sue you and you have to prove that every tiny detail of what you said is factual.
Personally I don't have a problem with that. After all, you have to be very sure that you can win otherwise you're going to have to pay my legal fees, face a potential counter-suit, and worst of all, have your reputation tarnished even further. The thing is, people should be checking their facts before publishing them to a wider audience. Also, I'm pretty sure that courts are open to the idea that sometimes terms and phrases can be interpreted ambiguously. "Tiny mistakes in delivery" is of course relative, but it's unlikely that the courts will rule in favour of the plaintiff where their case is clearly frivolous.
Free speech with a few people getting away with a bit of name calling vs supression of valid points due to tiny mistakes in delivery. I know which one I'd rather have.