These people are even more SICK than I realized.....🙄🙄
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
Laws that restrict speech go back to the 17th century. Libel laws anyone?
This is a very good point, one I had not thought of. My research was into changes to the laws that were directed at the first amendment specifically, as determined by SCOTUS.
In the case of defamation it's a little different however, because defamation requires the person themselves to bring a suit against the defamer. The State can't charge a person with defamation, but the state can charge a person will "illegal speech" in these other instances.
Nevertheless, despite those differences, there are fundamental similarities. I will have to think on that more. I assert however, in a society with truly free speech, where a person could offer a rebuttal against defamation, that no harm can come to a person because of it. (This assumes that the defamation is an untrue or mischaracterized statement.)
It is only when we believe or trust a source of defamation (the media e.g.) that defamation can cause any harm at all. In other words, defamation can't be a rights infringement on its own; it requires The Matrix to support it. In such a case it would be The Matrix which was the crime (Rights infringement), not the defamation itself.
Excellent reply sir, I admire you for it. An example of a 17th century law against speech that the government could enforce would be the Sedition Act of 1798.