But all we see are two proponents in a civil trial. Shouldn't the standard be the well known "preponderance of evidence"?
Though personally preponderance of evidence seems to be a shitty standard too because I might be listening to two awful theories and be forced to conclude one is the winner. Theories should rise above a minimum threshold to even consider sniffing at before we consider one as superior over the other.
I agree that there needs to be a better standard than just “more likely than not”. Freedom of expression is a fundamental good, and there should be clear evidence of harm outweighing that good, before curtailing it.
Regarding my previous comment, my intent was to point out the GP comment’s position (because the parent’s comment seemed to be beside the point), not necessarily to endorse it.
