The problem with truth as an absolute defence is that as the courts famously remind us, "the truth" is not the same standard as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
The extra parts can be rather important when someone's reputation is at stake. For example, consider the difference between "John was accused of being a paedophile" and "John was accused of being a paedophile, though the investigation was soon dropped after no supporting evidence was found and it turned out that his accuser was an ex-girlfriend with a track record of psychiatric problems including making false allegations of serious criminal behaviour to get people she didn't like into trouble".
This is also why the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling wasn't nearly as crazy as some people have been suggesting, BTW.
I think corporations here in the US that are against it managed to set a pretty good FUD campaign about right to be forgotten, and I think a lot of people bought into it.
I much prefer the truth as a defense idea, which goes against the strict interpretation of the UN's charter.
And do not forget, "Grab her by the pussy" is now the presidential standard. there was some in this country that were that crude and direct about sexual assault, but those views are now given much more airtime..