To clarify, as I read this situation, it would be more analogous to you host a party, someone at your party tells someone else that I killed a person, it is a f

To clarify, as I read this situation, it would be more analogous to you host a party, someone at your party tells someone else that I killed a person, it is a factually untrue statement, it ends up having real world ramifications for me. I go to you and ask who it was and you say I am not going to tell you, so I go to the government and petition my right to not be slandered and then you say well my party is protected by this first amendment law, I will not tell you or the government who it was. In this case my being slandered trumps and terminates (civilly) your and your guests free speech rights. I should get the persons name and I walk away going what a hypocrite (to be clear not real you personally, but imaginary you at our imaginary party). Which is what I was expressing in my first post, I think they are being hypocritical in using the law as a shield. They don't want a law that restrains government applied to them, but they want to use a law applied against the government to block a private party from seeking redress from harm.