[LocalH]

Care to elaborate? How do you protect against abuse of any exceptions in the long term? Why do you characterise absolute freedom of speech as an "ignorant" take, which could be construed as a bad-faith discussion tactic on here.

[fay59]

With “absolute free speech”, a couple of us could find your name and address, spread credible and damaging falsehoods about you, and there’s nothing you could do to stop us. And that’s not just in some online soapbox; we could call your employer, make police reports, put ads in newspapers, put posters on utility poles, tell your neighbours, tell the businesses that serve you, etc.

[ethbr0]

Yes. And we could do the same back to you.

Presumably society would eventually get over itself and evolving into something more tolerant of personal opinions, and questioning internet-sourced information.

Or, from another perspective, the only alternative is that only some people can do that. (E.g. politicians, security services, etc)

I'm not sure that would be preferable.

[fay59]

Choosing to be at the mercy of the people with the best opsec instead of the government sure is a take.

EDIT: I mean “in addition to the government”.

[fay59]

I’m sorry. I really meant “in addition to the government”.