Seriously! I usually try to avoid news-related articles, but this time I'll bite. When are we going to stop striving for some utopian perfection that is not th

Seriously! I usually try to avoid news-related articles, but this time I'll bite. When are we going to stop striving for some utopian perfection that is not there and instead realize/accept that most codified valuation have a conjugate trade off that can't be messaged away. I know I'm not saying anything interesting here, but it bears repeating, there is probably no set of laws that (1) has strong protections put in place to resist abuse (2) is going to truly champion free speech and (3) still have real world protections against fake news that can't be easily circumvented. What's the difference between a interest-group paid authoritatively-toned opinion-piece and fake news? How much of the former are you willing to nondiscriminatory censor to ensure squashing the later? What is the social/economic blow-black for that censorship? Said another way, at what point does omitting facts become misrepresentation? And how many people's livelihoods are you willing to bet on the quality of your distinction? When it comes to fake news, I'm as disgusted as the next person, but not every misuse of free speech deserves the special legislation that we grant to hate speech.