4 ms·
> Any free speech purist would do well to remember what their legal recourse would be if somebody made elaborate false-allegations about you that harmed your ca
by ch4s3 3y ago
> Any free speech purist would do well to remember what their legal recourse would be if somebody made elaborate false-allegations about you that harmed your career and marriage
This is a total straw man. Free speech absolutists almost universally acknowledge that fraud, defamation, libel, and narrowly defined incitement are special cases that don't qualify for protection.
With respect to "disinformation", I would challenge you to come up with a strict definition and a framework for applying that designation and see how you might feel about giving that tool to your political opponents.
- sneak 3y agoQuite incorrect. Defamation is a tort, not a crime. It's legal. Criminal defamation laws in the US have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional, not by absolutists but by lots of normal working judges.
- ch4s3 3y agoI'm quite aware of that, and you'll notice if you read my comment again that I specifically said "are special cases that don't qualify for protection", not that they should be a crime. Civil cases are actually a great way to address defamation.
- sneak 3y agoThat's the thing, though - they are still "protected speech" under 1A. That's why laws banning it get struck down.
- ch4s3 3y agoIf you're going to lawyer every word here, I'll be more precise. I mean immune from legal redress, not "protected" per 1a. Dealing with defamation via civil suit is perfectly consistent with a free speech absolutist position, which is my original point. This is an incredibly tedious exchange, it seems like you're going to pains to find the least charitable interpretation of what I'm saying.