[Krasnol]

Since you chose to ignore most of the content of my comment I try again in a shorter way:

- in your country, do you have the FREEDOM to tell lies about whoever you chose to whoever you want? Like the media or police for example?

[brigandish]

As you chose to ignore my advice I'll expand on it for you so that you can avoid a straw man - intentional or not - with your next reply, because the one you just gave is embarrassing:

- Read some of what advocates of freedom of speech have written. If you're able to find someone advocating the freedom to lie to whomever one choses or about whomever one wants without restriction, you've hit the jackpot. Bring back a flying pig while you're at it.

- English common law (and hence American) already includes some types of lie as protected speech(see [1] for a primer and [2] for more examples from America).

Hence, both the idealists and the pragmatists are well ahead of you here.

Finally, this:

> Like the media or police for example?

Why should there be a law against lying to the media? That made me chuckle. Or did you mean by the media? Also a laughable notion. Shackling the press for the common good is almost a cliché in a dictator's playbook.

As to the police, why lie to the police when you shouldn't talk to them at all?[3] You have a right to silence (or did, in the UK) since hundreds of years back (which is itself another aspect of free speech). That video also covers how the police are legally permitted to lie to suspects and routinely do, so whichever question you intended based on brazenly displayed ignorance of the subject at hand, it's been covered.

I suggest you begin here, with On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/index.html

[1] https://law.stackexchange.com/a/132/11158

[2] https://www.standleague.org/newsroom/blog/freedom-of-speech-...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[Krasnol]

I meant spread lies about someone to the police or media...not lie to the police or media. I assumed this would have been obvious.

[brigandish]

Assumptions are why people are often mistaken, and lack of clarity in writing often exposes a lack of clarity in thought.

Regardless, I didn't make assumptions and covered all bases. Do get back in touch if you bother to find out what this free speech stuff is all about, otherwise you are welcome to leave it.

[Krasnol]

I love it how you complained about an personal attack on you (even when it wasn't but you seem to have taken it personally) and from than on you intentionally failed to follow 1) my argumentation 2) the above mentioned real life example of a working restriction 3) attacked me personally.

My attempt to break the problem down so you won't be able to derail again failed since you intentionally misunderstood me and wrote a huge comment which is completely irrelevant since what you described is the case in every civilized country. My second attempt to push you on the topic. Without any decoration was followed by this personal something.

So the discrepancy between you seeming to want to participate in a discussion and the amount of work you invest in derailing it, do not fit. I assume therefore that I fell for a troll.

Don't get back in touch. I don't care.

[brigandish]

> One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand…

> So how about looking at reality for a change?

Someone using this type of language on HN has no room to complain about criticism of their behaviour.