I'm engaging directly in your argument: "A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor wi

I'm engaging directly in your argument: "A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom." If the determination of the truth (i.e. what is a lie or not) is established by the 'authority', then there's no basis of credibility in your statement. It's naive to suggest we live in a magical world wherein the truth and falsehoods can easily be determined, or that statements can be even themselves deemed conclusive. "The Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "It looks like the Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "The Prime Minister was motivated to commit Fraud by this circumstance, and I suspect he did" Now tell me, which one of those is 'lies and slander'? How is the determination of 'fraud' even made? On the basis of a court ruling? How can someone speculate about malicious activity and do the reporting, the work which often leads to more material investigations in the first place, if it's illegal? "Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? " I didn't remotely say that or imply that, but 'institutions' - i.e. the Judiciary, the Press, Legislative, Bureaucracy, Academia are held to higher standard because there's a proportionality to their claims to legitimacy: if John Smith wants to say 'The PM is a fraud' - it means something different than when the 'Paper of Record' says 'John is a Fraud'. "These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma." Freedom of Expression is not a 'dogma' or a 'platitude' - it's fundamental to the well being of society which is why they are entrenched in every constitution of the modern age i.e. EU, Canada, USA etc..