keep in mind 2 things, 1) this is my opinion. 2) in the US, "free speech" is only legally protected from the government.

free speech is a right. like every right it comes with responsabilities. you can abuse your free speech rights in a way that warrents state enforced punishment. it is better to let many people off the hook for unresponsable speech then punish a single person unjustly for it. where the line is drawn will not be where i want it to be, but where the elected representatives want it to be

Should she face *legal* consequences

There is anononymous slander though. You know 'I heard someone say'

You're looking at both criminal and civil problems here

Libel and defamation are not criminal

But, if you can prove damages and intent, you have a civil case and can sue

depends on your term legal. I think you should be able to SUE her, but unless she filed a false police statement, she should not be held criminally responsible

So, libel is technically free speech but you can be held financially responsible for it in civil court

In the case I've stated, Hardwick loses a ton of business, and a show of his gets cancelled

Does that count as damages

if there is enough evidence? then she should have to pay for those damages

And what should she repay for

And how

If he can prove he wouldn't have suffered those losses without the libel/defamation, then they definitely count as damages

but that would be between her and chris, with a third neutral party determining an appropriate middle ground.

And is her posting that medium article still free speech

It is free speech because it's not a criminal offense to lie about someone in the public space

Because you could lie due to ignorance or due to malevolence

But she had tort liability due to damages she caused from her actions

Which can trigger a lawsuit

think of it like this, with libel and slander: Its not the lie you are being sued for, its the action of intentionally causing harm to someone's livelihood.

@Grenade123 you're being sued for the losses caused by your actions

i don't word it like that, because speaking is the action, which is what is defended by free speech

in my opinion

If the actions cause no financial losses, you won't get anything by suing

but that is why you need to prove that the lie was intentional, or at least blatant enough that it can be considered negligence.

@Grenade123 yup. Negligence is the minimum requirement

looking up at where this conversation comes from, i wonder if it wouldent be important to point out that slander and libal arnt criminalized the way other things are. its technically a criminal act to own an illegal weapon but its not a criminal act to slander or libal until a court decides speech within context match that discription

well they did ask about absolutists, so at what point should perhaps a state step in to defend free speech should also be considered

there really isint a policing of speech for libal or slander

so while it might not be criminal, could you say the state should make it illegal to sue someone for libal or slander

since free speech is more protection from the government

Suing for libel/slander could be considered a check on someone to prevent them from ruining the lives of innocent people

i.e. should twitter not be allowed to ban someone for saying words. obviously no one here believes that i would think. even if we agree they shouldn't, its a private business

i wouldent like for slander and libal to be no longer offences but it should also be noted that slander and libal have as much to do with agressive bussiness practices as they do free speech

From my perspective, a free speech absolutist is someone who is against the government imposing ANY laws on speech (with the exception of inciting violence/threats)

Because those actions infringe on the rights of others

i think its sort of a matter of not being free from consaquences

You're not free from consequences

You can get sued, fired from your job, socially ostracised