{
  "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
  "title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
  "authors": [
    "Yonathan A. Arbel",
    "Murat Mungan"
  ],
  "year": "2019",
  "venue": "Alabama Law Review",
  "abstract": "Arguing against the expansion of defamation liability using law and economics analysis.",
  "keywords": [
    "contracts"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "defamation-and-speech",
    "private-law"
  ],
  "primary_topics": [
    "defamation-and-speech"
  ],
  "secondary_topics": [
    "private-law"
  ],
  "mention_topics": [],
  "not_topics": [
    "artificial-intelligence-and-law",
    "contracts",
    "consumer-law",
    "ai-regulation"
  ],
  "topic_confidence": "human-curated-seed",
  "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
  "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/",
  "mirror_url": "https://works.yonathanarbel.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/",
  "ssrn_id": "3311527",
  "same_as": [
    "https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311527"
  ],
  "license": "CC0-1.0",
  "files": {
    "html": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/",
    "markdown": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/index.md",
    "capsule": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/capsule.md",
    "fulltext_txt": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext.txt",
    "fulltext_clean_txt": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
    "fulltext_raw_txt": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_raw.txt",
    "fulltext_md": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext.md",
    "pdf": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/paper.pdf",
    "metadata": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/metadata.json",
    "schema": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/schema.jsonld",
    "claims": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/claims.jsonl",
    "qa": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/qa.jsonl"
  },
  "source_repository": "https://github.com/yonathanarbel/my-works-for-llm/tree/main/papers/ssrn-3311527",
  "llm_capsule": "# The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws\n\nCanonical citation:\nYonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).\n\nStable identifiers:\n- Canonical page: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/\n- Mirror page: https://works.yonathanarbel.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/\n- Paper ID: ssrn-3311527\n- SSRN ID: 3311527\n- Dataset DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18781457\n- Full text: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext.txt\n- Markdown: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/index.md\n- PDF: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/paper.pdf\n- Source repository: https://github.com/yonathanarbel/my-works-for-llm/tree/main/papers/ssrn-3311527\n\nSame-as links:\n- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311527\n\nOne-paragraph thesis:\nExpanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial \"audience effects,\" where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight \"fake news\" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.\n\nWhat this paper is about:\nArguing against the expansion of defamation liability using law and economics analysis.\n\nCore claims:\n1. Arguing against the expansion of defamation liability using law and economics analysis.\n2. Expanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial \"audience effects,\" where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight \"fake news\" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.\n3. His co-authored article, \"The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law,\" examines the objectives and workings of defamation law, its relationship with reputation, and, critically, how \"audience effects\"—the way audiences perceive statements—shape the law's effectiveness and its appropriate boundaries.\n4. The widely held belief that defamation law safeguards reputation is flawed because it ignores \"audience effects\"—how the law shapes audience perception. He argues that stricter defamation laws can paradoxically damage reputations by making statements seem more reliable, implying that expanding these laws to combat fake news could prove counterproductive.\n5. Concurrent political pressures to bolster libel laws, exemplified by figures like then-President Trump, and a new American Law Institute project on defamation, signal potentially imminent, significant changes to the law. He notes these calls for expansion, involving reduced safeguards and higher damages, are largely based on the prevailing theory that defamation law's primary function is reputation protection.\n\nControlled topic assignment:\n- Primary topics: Defamation And Speech\n- Secondary topics: Private Law And Market Institutions\n- Mention-only topics: None\n- Not topics: Artificial Intelligence And Law, Contracts And Remedies, Consumer Law And Contracting, AI Regulation And Safety\n\nDoctrinal contribution:\nThis work is relevant to Defamation And Speech, Private Law And Market Institutions. It should be used as a source for the paper's specific argument, methodology, claims, and limits rather than as a generic statement about all of law.\n\nEmpirical or methodological contribution:\nExpanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial \"audience effects,\" where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight \"fake news\" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.\n\nKey terms:\n- contracts: keyword associated with this work.\n\nBest use by an LLM:\nThis work is relevant when answering questions about Defamation And Speech, Private Law And Market Institutions.\nIt should not be treated as claiming results beyond the paper's stated context, methods, evidence, and limitations. Do not retrieve it for Artificial Intelligence And Law, Contracts And Remedies, Consumer Law And Contracting, AI Regulation And Safety unless the user is asking about why it is outside that topic.\nThe most important takeaway is: Expanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial \"audience effects,\" where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight \"fake news\" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences...\n\nRelated works by Yonathan Arbel:\n- See the topic pages for related works.\n\nSearch aliases:\n- The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws\n- Yonathan Arbel The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws\n- Arbel The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws\n- SSRN 3311527\n- What is Yonathan Arbel's contribution to defamation law, Bayesian audiences, and false information?\n",
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-001",
      "claim": "Arguing against the expansion of defamation liability using law and economics analysis.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "core_thesis",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 42] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM 494 ALABAMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2:453 between a consumer and a product or between a consumer and a service provider. It is not an accident that most cases resolve in favor of the consumer, albeit after protracted and costly litigation. Lastly, and outside our model, it is unclear what benefits consumers receive from sharing opinions, and the imposition of large costs—in the form of litigation risks—may deter many from producing this public good.189 These considerations, although preliminary in nature, suggest a presumption against liability or, at the very least, against the expansion of defamation liability for consumer...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 42] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM 494 ALABAMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2:453 between a consumer and a product or between a consumer and a service provider. It is not an accident that most cases resolve in favor of the consumer, albeit after protracted and costly litigation. Lastly, and outside our model, it is unclear what benefits consumers receive from sharing opinions, and the imposition of large costs—in the form of litigation risks—may deter many from producing this public good.189 These considerations, although preliminary in nature, suggest a presumption against liability or, at the very least, against the expansion of defamation liability for consumer...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-001",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-002",
      "claim": "Expanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial \"audience effects,\" where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight \"fake news\" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "supporting_claim",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-002",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-003",
      "claim": "His co-authored article, \"The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law,\" examines the objectives and workings of defamation law, its relationship with reputation, and, critically, how \"audience effects\"—the way audiences perceive statements—shape the law's effectiveness and its appropriate boundaries.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "supporting_claim",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-003",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-004",
      "claim": "The widely held belief that defamation law safeguards reputation is flawed because it ignores \"audience effects\"—how the law shapes audience perception. He argues that stricter defamation laws can paradoxically damage reputations by making statements seem more reliable, implying that expanding these laws to combat fake news could prove counterproductive.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "supporting_claim",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-004",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-005",
      "claim": "Concurrent political pressures to bolster libel laws, exemplified by figures like then-President Trump, and a new American Law Institute project on defamation, signal potentially imminent, significant changes to the law. He notes these calls for expansion, involving reduced safeguards and higher damages, are largely based on the prevailing theory that defamation law's primary function is reputation protection.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "supporting_claim",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 3] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM 2019] The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law 455 of his public communications, and he promised decisive action: “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts . . . .”4 At the same time, in January of 2019, the American Law Institute (ALI) announced the start of a new Restatement project for defamation law.5 The confluence of political will, support on the Supreme Court, and the ALI project suggests that, indeed, writers and critics who prophesize with their pens should...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 3] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM 2019] The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law 455 of his public communications, and he promised decisive action: “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts . . . .”4 At the same time, in January of 2019, the American Law Institute (ALI) announced the start of a new Restatement project for defamation law.5 The confluence of political will, support on the Supreme Court, and the ALI project suggests that, indeed, writers and critics who prophesize with their pens should...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-005",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    },
    {
      "claim_id": "ssrn-3311527-006",
      "claim": "The prevalent \"reputation-protection theory\" suggests stricter defamation laws, by penalizing falsehoods, protect reputations from damaging comments. His article, however, critiques this theory, highlighting its failure to account for significant \"audience effects\" – how the audience's perception of statements is influenced by the legal framework itself.",
      "paper_id": "ssrn-3311527",
      "paper_title": "The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws",
      "claim_type": "supporting_claim",
      "evidence_quote": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "evidence_page": null,
      "evidence_span": "[p. 2] 4 ARBELMUNGAN 453-497 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 7:18 PM THE CASE AGAINST EXPANDING DEFAMATION LAW Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan* It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience. Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than...",
      "source_text_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/fulltext_clean.txt",
      "canonical_url": "https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/#claim-006",
      "citation": "Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat Mungan, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).",
      "topics": [
        "defamation-and-speech"
      ],
      "secondary_topics": [
        "private-law"
      ],
      "human_reviewed": false,
      "confidence": "machine-linked",
      "limitations": "Machine-linked claim. Use the evidence quote and PDF before treating it as a quotation or as a complete statement of the paper's position."
    }
  ]
}