4 ms·

>> America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals Except that the first thing they did after gaining independence was to adopt the entire body of b

>> America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals Except that the first thing they did after gaining independence was to adopt the entire body of british common law, including basically all of the slander/liable jurisprudence. While it was certainly modified by the US constitution, they did not believe that every tom dick and harry should be able to tout lies about people unimpeded. Political satire was one thing, the british had already embraced that, but going after random civil servants or members of the public was not on. Calling judges or election workers criminals/pedos/traitors, as is the norm today, would not have been tolerated.

hayst4ck 2y ago
Yes. Liberalism is fundamentally about the social contract, so those limits on speech are compatible with liberal ideals. It is very consistent with liberalism that objective lies are a punishable offense because they are violations of the social contract, similar as shouting fire in a crowded building when there is no fire, a tobacco salesman saying their product is healthy, or an opiate salesman telling doctors their product is not addictive. Of course that's idealistic because the truth in many situations is largely unknowable and the temptation to put government officials above the law is great. Reprisal for false accusations is a chilling effect for those making true accusations. That means there is a balancing act to be done. Both type 1 and type 2 errors are bad. Since America cannot effectively punish lairs, that weakness in our system is being actively exploited to great effect, you can read fox news court documents where they defend their right to lie. Unpunished lies give those who lie power, reduces societal trust, and drives division between members of society. But likewise true accusations must not experience reprisal because otherwise it gives those in positions of power a shield against consequences for their crimes.

hayst4ck 2y ago

Yes. Liberalism is fundamentally about the social contract, so those limits on speech are compatible with liberal ideals. It is very consistent with liberalism that objective lies are a punishable offense because they are violations of the social contract, similar as shouting fire in a crowded building when there is no fire, a tobacco salesman saying their product is healthy, or an opiate salesman telling doctors their product is not addictive. Of course that's idealistic because the truth in many situations is largely unknowable and the temptation to put government officials above the law is great. Reprisal for false accusations is a chilling effect for those making true accusations. That means there is a balancing act to be done. Both type 1 and type 2 errors are bad. Since America cannot effectively punish lairs, that weakness in our system is being actively exploited to great effect, you can read fox news court documents where they defend their right to lie. Unpunished lies give those who lie power, reduces societal trust, and drives division between members of society. But likewise true accusations must not experience reprisal because otherwise it gives those in positions of power a shield against consequences for their crimes.