[kypro]

> I completely get the argument, that free speech shall not be limited by anyone. But as a society we have to decide if free speech should also cover blatant lies and deliberate misinformation.

I hear this position a lot in relation to free speech and it's one I can't understand for the life of me. I guess I don't know what a blatant lie is, and further I know it's something I've been accused of many times in my life when attempting to speak the truth.

I have two questions for you:

* 1: If I say something that I genuinely believe, but is strongly contradicted by evidence that I may or may not be aware of do I have a right to say it?

* 2: If I say something that I believe is factually incorrect would I not have any right to say it?

Perhaps an example here would help. So something I've noticed is there are a lot of conspiracy theory websites which talk about an invisible man that can cure sick people. As far as I can tell this seems to be contradicted by the evidence and these people seem to be either blatantly lying or just completely ignorant of current scientific data. In some cases people who run these website are causing real world harm by convincing people that they shouldn't seek professional medical treatment for their illnesses because the invisible man will take care of them. My understanding is that in some cases conspiracy theorists are even refusing to get vaccinated because they believe the invisible man doesn't want them to get vaccinated.

I'm just wondering if you believe that websites dedicated to the invisible man conspiracy theory should be banned? And if so should those causing real world harm by lying about the invisible man be held to account for their actions?