You can only sue for defamation if know who the culprit is. On the internet it is relatively easy to remain anonymous.

Case in point: the dairy abuse video that was shot (let agree, it was bad). I've seen it rework and targeted at a milk creamery in Oregon (all via YouTube and Facebook). The video state that this was how the Oregon creamery treated its cows. Couple problems: the dairy wasn't in Oregon, it was in Idaho. The dairy in Idaho doesn't sell to the creamery in Oregon. And the creamery in Oregon DOESN'T OWN ANY COWS. They contract their milk from dairymen in Oregon.

Wouldn't surprise me if someone making videos and submitting to YouTube slipped up and identifying info was available. Did the dairy in question pursue this case or assume it was too hard to identify someone?

Does the filmmaker have enough money to cover the farmer's losses? And does the farmer have enough money to hold out until they get paid?

So, are you suggesting we should eliminate or limit 1st amendment rights in cases where the parties involved in defamation wouldn't have the money to cover the defamed's losses?

If the film is popular (and therefore does more damage), the filmmaker will probably have the means to adequately compensate the farmer. If it isn't popular, it probably won't do much damage to the farmer.

Limiting free speech isn't a good solution.

I withdraw my suggestion.