Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blo

Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blow across the street is wrongfully called a pedophilic arsonist on the front page of the New York Times. And it's still kind of crappy when Bo Jellow's actual theft of $50 in Missouri is shamed in Europe. Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. > I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. It depends on where you live what the law allows. > though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over People have been asking for limits on public posting of even non-fake "revenge" porn for years. Edit: > can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress. You can claim this while only positing a new form of distribution. Talking about policies and the limits of freedoms is one of the fundamental freedoms necessary to a well functioning democracy or republic. It's no attack, as the speech does not create law, or even policy, only the courts or congress or duly appointed regulators (pre-Chevron overturning[1]) can do that. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...