A. We are not having a private conversation, we are on a public website and our conversation is viewable by anyone.

B. Even if you and I were having a private conversation and it was loud enough to be overheard by a third person, that meets the requirements for a slander lawsuit.

I don't know why you bring in the Department of Justice as it has almost nothing to defamation laws. Both Libel and Slander are civil torts, which means the government doesn't arrest you, but the private party who was defamed can sue you. Public figures have a higher standard to meet in defamation cases, so for John Podesta to be defamed you have to show "actual malice"

"Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.

For non public people like, say the working on my night cheese guy, the standard is lower. The basic standard for famous and non famous folk they can be defamed by statements that are published false injurious unprivileged

Any statement made on voat already meets two of these criteria, published and unprivileged. So for libel to be on this board, the person suing would have to prove the statement is false and that they have been injured by the statement. Opinions are not defamation. I think Workingonmynightcheese is a creepy, little weasel is not defamation. Workingonmynightcheese rapes and kills children and sells their cadavers to his friends to make soap would be defamation if he could prove injury. Injury would be like he lost business or was harassed by the press or was shunned by friends or family.

I am not a lawyer, but proving that statement is false might be as simple as submitting a police record.

In making a prima facie case for libel first, the plaintiff needs to prove that the statement was false. ......For some claims that fall within "libel per se" these are easier to prove. The accusation that one is a criminal can be easily proven false by submitting a lack of a criminal record.

In fact, I just looked up "libel per se" and in this case, he wouldn't have to prove injury or malice

libel per se

n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

So my read on that is any time someone on this board says someone is a pedophile without qualification it is libel per se, with the exceptions of cases of actual convicted pedophiles.

Of course, no one is actually going to go through the trouble to sue for libel for things said on Voat.
There is a case on Twitter right now that might be going to court. If it does, we will all hear about it.

In short, yes, there are ways to injure people on Voat.