See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example.

The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?

The UK is infamous for its ruinous libel lawsuits against people who dare to say true things about the rich and powerful. It was so widely abused that the US ended up having to introduce a law blocking our libel suits fronm being enforced over there.

Other countries? Ok.

- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...

I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive

- https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil...

- https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee...

It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.

Controversial Suggestion: People discern truth for themselves like they always have and will always continue to do. True and Trustworthy are two very different things when it comes to human instinct. Something that is true but not trustworthy due to lack of feedback may be wrong in the future. Furthermore something that proves to be trustworthy on some subjects might not be the same on others

Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.

What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with?

I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.

>Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary

That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.