There is no law that dictates these two things:

1) You can't stalk someone deliberately and persistently, using any means, or medium; even if you're a company, and even if you have good intentions.

2) You can't intentionally influence any number of people towards believing something false and that you know is against their interest.

These things need to be felony-level or higher crimes, where executives of companies must be prosecuted.

Not only that, certain crimes like these should be allowed to be prosecuted by citizens directly. Especially where bribery and threats by powerful individuals and organizations might compromise the interests of justice.

The outcome of this trial won't amount to anything other than fines. The problem is, this approach doesn't work. They'll just find different ways that can skirt the law. Criminal consequence is the only real way to insist on justice.

▲

qnleigh 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The probably with 2 is you then need someone to be the arbiter of truth, and the truth is often a hard thing to find. This would end up letting governments jail people they disagree with. How would you write the law to to prevent that?

	▲	direwolf20 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The whole point of a court is to find truth. They do it all the time. Actually you would need to prove someone knew something is untrue, because it's innocent until proven guilty. You wouldn't have to prove what you said is true to get let off, just bring enough doubt to ward off your opponent's accusation of untruth.