[perennate]

> then the question is whether you actively participated in

There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].

It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

[kelnos]

I very much believe that intent matters, and should matter, but the problem with intent in a legal setting is that often it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and the defendant just has to say "I never intended it to mean that; I was thinking $INNOCENT_THING when I said it" to inject some doubt into the proceedings, often enough doubt to avoid a guilty verdict.

[perennate]

I agree that there needs to be a balance. I'd argue that US defamation law is close to the "right" balance, by making a stronger case needed to prosecute defamation against public figures (like public officials or celebrities), and by focusing not exactly on intention but on whether the defendant within reason could have believed the statement was true.