Its slander.

Its literally JUST slander

And it's meant to protect business

Which can ruin the person's reputation and that's threatening to the person

The same way copyright is used to protect business

Copyright also, isnt anything to do with a threat

But again, a form of limiting speecg

They're written into law and you inherently benefit from them, we all do, and you're claiming they somehow aren't real

I dont understand your malfunction

Free speech is fine and useful for arguments and debates and conversations so long as someone doesn't directly threaten someone or cause possible harm to the person.

LAW

a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

You're wrong

I dont understand why you're still going

How so?

The point is who can say what

Is limited at any given time

Regardless as to whether we think it's "good" to limit those forms of speech

Or not

Anyone can say anything so long as it doesn't cause direct and intentional harm.

Apparently not

Apparently Nazis can run around and say all sorts of shit that causes intentional harm

And you justify it on a consistent basis

Such as?

Yet you'll use libel to protect business

You're trying to draw all these distinctions that literally don't exist

What do I justify that nazis do that causes intentional harm?

Nazi here, AMA

Gg

Wondering when the Nazis would come

What do I justify that nazis do that causes intentional harm? @Deleted User

We are always watching 😈

And I'm not going to speak to your personal actions E, don't use semantics

I mean as a liberal public

@Mr.E#2794 I dont know

Point is your definition of free speech literally isnt the one we use

I'm not using semantics. You said You're so I assumed you were talking about me.

There can only be ONE free speech

No I mean you as a liberal

And you knew I did

Not some speech is free but some aint

Hence that's the context