"We really need a law like that in the US, as it is morally and ethically wrong to assert an accusation as fact without being willing to back it up with something to substantiate that accusation. I think I will write my congressman and ask him to propose a law to that effect. "

<In this case, I hate to disagree, but I must. The reason? If you give the Congress any rights to restrict free speech, you weaken First Amendment protection. That is a very bad thing.>

I don’t see being able to make baseless statements of fact as being something that should be protected under the first amendment. As a matter of fact, that is typically called slander. The only problem is it usually applies to a person, or corporation. So I think it would be stretching the slander laws as they are currently written in the case of SCO’s abusive claims that they are unwilling to backs up with evidence that substantiates their claims.

After all how would you like it if someone started going around your neighborhood telling everyone are a @#$%e, and that it’s a fact without a doubt, but they refuse to tell anyone how they know this because it’s a secret. The fact is such a statement is a baseless accusation, more commonly called a lie, and I don’t see any reason the first amendment should protect liars.

That is what SCO is doing in my opinion, telling a lie and using claims of secrecy to avoid having to substantiate their claims. I see no reason a company should have the right to do that, and see no reason they should not be punishable for such actions. To me it makes a lot of sense to fine companies that publish lies, and that is what the German law seems to do. If you are a company over there, when you start publishing something as a fact, you had better be willing to back those claims up somehow, and I see that as a good thing.