[nverno]

By this metric, everyone's personal opinions/worries/etc. are anti-democratic. The only pro-democratic material, with all the 'facts' and data, would be that put forth by the people with access to said information, which in this case is people working in the government.

[pvaldes]

I can think that somebody is a bad person, even suspect that is a criminal. This is a personal opinion. Not problem with it.

But If I say in a public media that a known public figure is a criminal or eats children alive for dinner, and I repeat this for months with a clear purpose of obtaining a personal benefit for me. If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim that it was just my opinion and should be respected... well, this is a different issue.

We would be moving in the field of defamation. Libel can destroy lives and is not a thing to be taken lightly.

> You would say other thing if it was somebody from "your party"

Or maybe not. This is a perfect example of your opinion about a strange on internet. I really couldn't care less about if who says it is red, blue or multicolor.

[nverno]

> If I do this while refusing to show any real proof of it and, when cornered by the truth, I claim that it was just my opinion and should be respected... well, this is a different issue.

If that 'public figure' is the government itself, or a member thereof, then making 'false' statements was, at one point, criminalized in the Sedition Act of 1798 [1]. This was extremely unpopular, and while never directly ruled upon in the Supreme Court, is roundly assumed to be unconstitutional [2].

Making up shit about the federal government is simply a protected right of free speech in the USA.

> > You would say other thing if it was somebody from "your party"

Not sure where this is coming from, but I think you are responding to someone else.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts#cite_n...