1. The mechanisms we have to address lies are obviously not working. As I mentioned, defamation is a joke.
2. "Who gets to say what is a lie" is a valid concern, but there are a few rejoinders. First, that problem already exists everywhere. In a fraud prosecution, the government has to prove that the defendant made false statements. That has not proven to be an intractable problem.
Second, we can address that concern with a buffer (using the term metaphorically). We could say that the falseness has to be established by clear and convincing evidence. And of course, intent matters. If the government can show intent to spread falsehoods (which would be required under any sensible system), it shouldn't be that hard to infer that the defendant's words were in fact false.
Third, isn't it an indictment of our current approach and the state of our society that "who gets to say what is a lie" is such a common response? This concern is almost pathological in itself. It shouldn't be hard to establish a lie, no matter who is saying it. Again, it depends on the nature of the lie. But most falsehoods that are close to the line of truth aren't necessary spread with conscious knowledge of its falseness, so they wouldn't be impacted.
To use an example: should it be illegal in some fashion for a registered nurse to claim on TV (let alone a congressional hearing) that the COVID vaccines makes a person magnetized? Are we really going to bat for that, even with awareness of the slippery slope problem? Should there really be no consequence at all? Shouldn't she at least lose her professional qualifications?
3. It's true that any system of punishing lies would likely require other changes to our political and judicial systems. For one thing, we need different judges. But again, there's a chicken-and-egg problem. We might get a better system and better judges if it was much harder to lie your way into power.
