> Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court.
It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit.
"Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.
It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit.
"Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.