The requirement for convicting a media source of libel ought to be much lower. [View all]

[TimberValley]

In my opinion, gossip magazines and tabloids ought to be be able to be convicted of libel for publishing something that is verifiably false. Supposedly the reason they aren't is because "malicious intent" or something like that has to be demonstrated in order for there to be a conviction of libel. I think that requirement ought to be done away with.

I know that many if not most people know that such magazines or tabloids are rubbish, but I still feel that they should be able to be convicted of libel for everything they write or publish that can be proven false. Plus, some people do believe such magazines/tabloids, so the argument that "nobody believes them" doesn't work.


The notion that a media source can publish false things and get away with it just seems wrong.