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

But you shouldn't be imprisoned for having the "wrong" opinion

consequences, will never be, the same!

right, being sued is the only place where the law is involved in slander and libal in the us

I'm calling the cyber police @Dr.Wol

so i dont actually think its a speech issue

Yeah but i think that's more tort liability and not federal law

its not a speech issue until you have proactive inforcement of a judicial interpiritation of slander or libal

Would fraud by false advertising or misleading also be protected under an absolute free speech position?

Always wondered that

i think a lot of people get confused between what is illegal and what can be taken as offence in court by an opposing party

@angeryer that's an interesting question

If the fraud only causes financial damages, then I guess the government wouldn't step in

But if the fraud infringes on other people's rights, then I guess the government would step in

Maybe it's a case by case basis?

thats certainly something that the government enforces with a standard rather than relying completely on cases being filed to the court

I'm not a lawyer but I wouldn't know how you would be able to fairly enforce a blanket law like that

But I guess consumer protection laws do that

I'm pretty sure consumer court allows you to sure for false advertising

yeah basicly that

So WTF do I know lmao

I don't know if you guys have it in freedomland