I know, I know, don't rely on Ai for factual information, but large language models are pretty good at sharing definitions, so here is the beginning of the one about evolving standards of Libel and Slander in our technological age:
"Libel and slander are the two primary types of defamation, which is a civil wrong (tort) that occurs when someone publishes a false and damaging statement about another person's reputation. The fundamental difference lies in how the false statement is communicated"
How it applies to me is that to stay alive as a bike rider in the streets of Miami I must employ various communicative strategies to engage the country's worst drivers into engaging with reality via direct audio visual cues that over time or out of context may be perceived wrongly or mischaracterized, and just to be funny which I got no problem with people may say things, but you know how the internet is so it just got me to thinking because everybody is talking about the guy that won a fight at the white house and what he said after, so my thing is this, and the law upholds it in the text, you can say pretty much whatever you want but you cannot present a lie as a fact, that's where people get into trouble, so if you are telling a joke or you are telling the truth, you are protected either way
It's way more complex or can be, but that's the very basics
What you gotta wonder now is what the meaning of intent in statement has to do with mass amounts of people believing in a joke as if it were a fact and how that changes everything
for instance if a joke built on a comedic-lie is perceived as true at large, malicious, and injurious that could be a case
but it's hard to say if riducolosi prima facie is even recognizable to a majority of people or what a reasonable person even is these days
very interesting