I can and I think I just did. Whatever standard is applied, I disagree that it should be higher for one class of legal person. As things stand, the Occupy movement defames away to its heart's content and the companies and individuals concerned must take it (a) because the idiots doing the defaming are not worth suing and (b) because it would damage their reputation more to be seen suppressing free speech. I don't see any real damage to those companies or individuals, do you? Their customers are capable of evaluating the critiques made by Occupy. The ones who believe their nonsense come from the class of anti-business ideologues who would hate them regardless, so it really doesn't matter.

Mark restates reasoned positions here in order to attribute wicked motives to his opponents. No doubt he would say I have done the same in tracing back what he sees as "high minded" ideals of property redistribution to his perceived (by me) personal greed and idleness. So what? Readers can read both sides and form their own views.

I felt sorry for Lord McAlpine. Being falsely accused of crimes against defenceless children is about as bad as it can get. But the truth is out now and his accusers are the ones whose reputation has been damaged. My sympathy for him began to evaporate when his lawyers implied that they will sue everyone who propagated the vile rumour. It seems he even has the power to make me sympathise with the revolting Monbiot creature; a power that I did not think existed.

All that's left of my teenage Maoism is the belief that the Great Helmsman was right when he wrote:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

If those who oppose my ideas want to sink to the level of "defamatory" accusations, then so be it. I will deny them mildly and readers can decide. If they are distasteful enough to make my mother shy from reading my blog, I will delete them. This blog is mine and though I have yet to delete a comment or block a user I reserve the right to do so. I am not of enough interest for anyone else to be interested in publishing any libels about me.

The laws of defamation provide me with no adequate protection anyway. Although I am relatively prosperous, the life's savings on which I hope to support myself until my death could be easily consumed by one defamation action, so I am unlikely ever bring one. The only effect libel law therefore has on me is to limit what I write here. For example, it prevents me blogging my best ever story about John Prescott. I got it from a reliable source and believe it to be true, but it will have to wait until that vile old parasite is dead, sadly.

The fact that you cannot defame the dead is a good illustration of how little value the law has, actually. I am more likely to be upset by your telling vile untruths about my late wife than about me, but the law permits you to say whatever you like without any recourse. If I can endure defamation of her character, I can certainly endure it of mine.

If it involves fraud, yes.

The laws of defamation would be among the first to go in my libertarian government. People need to take responsibility for evaluating what they see, hear and read. The existence of the law leads people to trust what the MSM says on the basis that their lawyers have read it for libel. As we have seen of late, they haven't even read it for sources half the time.

Besides, defamation is no protection for the poor. The legal fees are huge and there is no legal aid for them. It's mainly a weapon of the rich. The only benefit the poor get is that they are not worth suing and can therefore say what they like (unless they encounter someone really rich and vengeful who is prepared to bankrupt them even if there are no damages to be had or costs to recover).

It would be far better, as in all other areas of life, for people to develop their own judgement as to what to believe. The BBC has done us a huge favour, for example, by so openly disclosing its bias. I hope it will lead to viewers being more critical of their output in future. Which only leaves the massive injustice that it is funded by force to put out statist agitprop.

Suing public authorities just means taxpayers pay more. You can't blame the victims for wanting compensation, but there is no educational effect upon the public servants concerned. Or perhaps that's wrong. Perhaps it educates them that they can do what they like and the public will always have to pay.