I'm confused; you seem to be arguing two opposite positions. You say that a civil defamation lawsuit by Dominion is suppressing dissent, and that Giuliani should be criminally prosecuted for unspecified crimes. You do realize that the latter has a much larger chilling effect, right? It's not consistent to argue against a civil case for being too chilling, and then argue for a criminal case over the same conduct.

> You say that a civil defamation lawsuit by Dominion is suppressing dissent, and that Giuliani should be criminally prosecuted for unspecified crimes

In case someone thinks this is splitting hairs, I fully support Dominion suing Giuliani for his alleged defamation. I would be somewhat horrified at the Attorney General attempting to put him in jail for it, ceteris paribus.

> Good, then prosecute him for the actual crimes he committed.

This is a tort that he actually committed, not a crime, but otherwise that’s what is happening. Not every violation of law is a “crime”.

That's exactly what this is. It's a lawsuit filed by the injured party, alleging defamation. Now a court will hear the evidence and (probably) find Giuliani guilty, because he very clearly engaged in defamation.

If it stands up in court without any goofy procedural arguments, I'm happy with it. That's what courts are for.

Out of curiosity, what is and is not a “goofy procedural argument” in this case?

I would consider something like "the statute applies to telegrams sent within a state, so there is no standing" to be a goofy procedural argument.

Applying the actual text of a law is a goofy procedural argument?

Lying about a company generally isn't a crime (except in restricted circumstances; there are probably scenarios where it could be a securities law issue, say), but a company is absolutely able to take a civil suit against someone who maliciously lies about it.

I realize this thread is flagged, but this reminded me of the recent situation in Thailand and the review on Tripadvisor. Thought I'd share in case you hadn't seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/world/asia/thailand-revie...

Oh, yep, I should have caveated that as "lying about a company isn't generally a crime IN DEVELOPED DEMOCRACIES". Some countries do still have in-use criminal libel laws, and the story is different there.

Several US states have criminal libel laws that might protect a company (particularly if the company is a bank or other financial institution, which seem to be the most common to be specifically protected.)

Are there any recent (this century) examples of _successful_ criminal libel actions in the US? I would've thought it'd be fairly clearly unconstitutional.

> Are there any recent (this century) examples of _successful_ criminal libel actions in the US?

This century is very young for laws that were never frequently invoked, but, yes, at least one in Kansas in 2002:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-li...