One of the common threads on some limits to free speech is the notion that lies are not protected. Libel, perjury, false advertisement, slander. I treat downvot

One of the common threads on some limits to free speech is the notion that lies are not protected. Libel, perjury, false advertisement, slander. I treat downvoting similarly: I only downvote things I know to be false and figure the speaker either knows it to be false or reasonably should know. Since I only downvote in the rare cases where I believe a person is being dangerously disingenuous or unreasonable, I often don't feel there would be any value in replying. If they are misrepresenting facts or I believe they are not reasonable, why would I attempt to reason with them? Instead if I think the person is just confused or hasn't considered a different perspective, I won't downvote and might reply. Often I will just ignore it anyways, since I am ambivalent about the possibility of reasoning with people over the internet.