🚀 go-pugleaf

Arlo Smith wrote:
> 
> : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
> 
> If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel would no
> longer be criminal offenses.
> 
> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the freedom
> to do people harm by speech.
> 
	As with all kinds of freedoms, there are boundaries. Otherwise, might will
really be right. Slander and libel is based on the same principle as personal
assault. You simply cannot, in a civilized society, go about with all shoulders
and elbows, hurting people by any means.

	The legal basis for slander and libel are based on the content being presented
to or made available to everyone, without supporting facts, which would lower
the plaintiff's esteem, in the eyes of his/her peers. The plaintiff must prove
that the "speech" has done that kind of harm, AND has suffered financial and/or
other losses as a result. AND, a lesser proof is that the defendent KNEW that
the content of the "speech" was NOT true or not accurate but still proceeded to
make it known by the general public.

	IF the defendent genuinely believes in what he/she said as being true, with
his/her supporting "evidence", then the plaintiff does not have a case.

	In other words, it is very difficult to nail somebody with a slander or libel
suit and win. I think that's enough protection for freedom of speech.

> --

-- 

Diana aka Bootsycat
Vancouver, B.C.   
When the going gets tough the tough go shopping