Suggestions for new rules regarding slander/defamation

Two prevailing principals:

1 If you sit on a testimony, then you shouldn't be forced to be silent

It is instead important that the testimony exists, at least searchable, so that others can find it, and so that others can provide their own testimony so that perhaps new patterns can be found.

2 The audience of the testimony should not be left hanging without the accused's version

The audience of the testimony should be treated a court/jury.

The audience, in their laziness, should have no trouble in ...

... finding the accused's version of what happened.

... adding comments, asking questions, voting on the best comments, in the same way as most comment sections work.

If the accused has written a response somewhere, then there should be a link to that along with the accusations.

Other points

Nagging could also be defamation.

If the accuser repeats the message over and over, to try to wear down the accused.

The accused shouldn't have to defend himself over and over.

If the accused "doesn't know computers"

Again if the jury don't get the accused's version, it might be defamation. So if the accused can't defend himself, the accuser might have to contact him in an other way (such as with a letter), and include the response with the accusations.

If it can be proven that the accuser doesn't know anything about the case, it could also be defamation

First hand accounts are much more legitimate.

It is here also important to distinguish the roles of different actors, such as the infrastructure provider.

The infrastructure provider have a much less (but not zero) guilt in any false accusations (defamation).

The infrastructure provider should remove accusations which have been proven to be false.