I'm pretty sure libel and slander are really hard to actually get judgements on. The information can't be true, and the victim has to be able to demonstrate damages. There may be other technical factors as well, such as whether the victim is famous and whether they rely on having a clear name to exist in the world. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that people get more nervous about slander than they really need to.
Not in the UK. The defendant must prove that the statement is true[1]. This is why the UK is a prime libel tourism destination, as the cost of defending the statement is often prohibitive to an individual.
Being a statement on the internet, I believe this case could be tried in the UK, hence the tourism aspect.
Ridiculous libel judgements in the UK will not be enforced in the US if the judgements violate the First Amendment.
I'm just waiting for day when libel tourism results in no one visiting the UK -- actual tourism -- because everyone has UK libel judgements against them.
This CEO would have to prove that they behave ethically, and then extrapolate the HN viewership with potential customers and thus lost revenue and/or a loss of brand equity.
This is certainly not a stretch for civil court, nor would it be inexpensive for either party involved.
