Let me take issue with his example then address your comment. A person might actually believe their info to be true. Why do I say this? Because I was trying to find an old friend last year and I googled her parents since they would be easier to find. They had both died, but there was an online pedo alert for her dad. Further research determined that this was completely false. Not only could I not find him on any legitimate gov't site nor in the court records, but the site that listed him, along with his photo, turned out to be a predatory one that charged people to take that info down. I don't know how it wasn't totally illegal. Maybe it was. But the point is, it's possible to believe something that's absolutely wrong when scrutinized. (Hm, that seems familiar.) However, if he did that full well knowing it was libelous, then yeah, sue the shit out of him. I doubt he cares about credibility anyway. But if you sued for damages you'd be asking first for compensatory damages to compensate you for any harm caused by the defamation, such as loss of business, loss of job, having to sell your house due to public perception, etc. You would likely also ask for punitive damages, which as the name suggests, serve to punish the defendant for his rotten behavior which could also serve to dissuade him from doing it to someone else. You might also sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress if you could link that to physical symptoms.
Censorship is the suppression of information, not telling someone to stop lying.
True, generally. I posted this answer to Pertinax126 also (it should be above, but who knows where these things end up in redditland): Stopping you from printing a story is called prior restraint and is generally disallowed, but with some exceptions such as national security. Forcing a retraction would be the result an injunction which can enjoin you from reprinting the offensive material, and is made by the party with standing, in this case practeerts since he is the injured party. Two different things. There are stricter laws regarding private citizens than with people in the public arena such as politicians and celebrities.
His example was a simple statement that is not founded on evidence and would be a case of libel. It isn't an incitement to violence; regardless of the potential vigilante response. It certainly isn't hate speech either.
Also true. One is civil between private parties, the other can be addressed both criminally and civilly. Still doesn't stop people from doing mean things to each other.