No, we do not want "stronger" libel laws.

you actually have to prove harm was one by lies and i think that's about the right spot. the first amendment is important but we cannot allow innocent citizens to be harmed by weaponized words.

the consequences can be averted if you simply issue a retraction and an apology. So if you get on a mass media outlet and say something untrue that causes an innocent person's business to be visited by a gun-wielding psychopath, you can make the resulting libel lawsuit go poof by saying you're sorry.

I think the standards are fine but the ability to get away from consequences is a way that our libel laws need touched upon.

weaken the 1st Amendment?

Maybe it's me but routinely saying things like "the children that died in the mass shooting never existed and the parents are faking" should result in better consequences.

who was a professor of communications at Florida Atlantic University. He was one of the "Sandy Hook truthers" who claimed that shooting never happened but was a hoax perpetrated by the government as an excuse for more gun control. This asshole harassed one of the Sandy Hook parents, demanding proof of their son's death. As a result the university fired him, even though he had tenure. He sued the university for wrongful termination, claiming they had violated his right to free speech, but a jury upheld his termination. So it looks like the law doesn't necessarily protect that sort of bullshit. It was not a defamation case but a jury evidently didn't think Tracy's free speech rights were violated by his getting fired for spreading bullshit.

Litigation of libel laws (or any litigation based process) skews toward favoring parties with the deeper pockets. That's going to be a slanted playing field against our side.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean freedom to incite, but apparently
America disagrees. Lack of strong libel laws beget Foxxx which beget Trump.

Don't all freedoms come with responsibilities and limits?

It's not incitement to say, "you totally beat up {some group of people}".

It is incitement to say, "see that guy there? *points* Go kick his ass."

And that's the way it should remain.

Hate speech is speech that targets a specific group of people for hatred, say Muslims or Jews and should be banned.

Your examples are not incitements as hate speech laws define the word, which does NOT require immediacy, just the opposite is usually the case. Your examples are not hate speech, just direct crimes.

Fuck that shit. Incitement has a legal meaning. "Incitement to hate" does not.

but Trump. He has some kind of malfunction that makes him blame others of his own shortcomings.