> I think the test here could/should be of visible and definite authorship
I see an additional test for the sharer as to whether they had reasonable expectation of knowing the information they were sharing was false and misleading.
Sharing from “Totally True News” (where sensational articles have no author and no source are quoted); that “you as a public figure are drinking the blood of babies.”
Comes to mind as probably valid ground to seek redress for defamation.
What if totally true news has a listed author even if he is a lunatic and lists sources even if they are awful. We ought to teach kids in school how to identify this but if we define in law which are good sources or which can get you sued into poverty we are in putting into effect a prior restraint on speech.
I see an additional test for the sharer as to whether they had reasonable expectation of knowing the information they were sharing was false and misleading.
Sharing from “Totally True News” (where sensational articles have no author and no source are quoted); that “you as a public figure are drinking the blood of babies.”
Comes to mind as probably valid ground to seek redress for defamation.