Poisoning people isn't speech. If I sell you a product that actually gives you cancer and say it doesn't, the crime shouldn't be that I lied, it should be that I gave you cancer.
Okay cool, so when it comes to using oil/gasoline as a fuel source should that be made non-free speech if I sell this despite the fact that there's clear evidence that it causes among other things cancer?
I don't say it doesn't I don't say it does.
And liable isn't a crime? What's then stopping people from calling each other pedophiles which in turn causes them to lose jobs/relationships/etc.
Should Alex Jones have been convicted of liable due to his claims surrounding Sandy hook?
I'm no free speech absolutist, as you'll end up eating your own tail, but I'm a 100% believer in free speech that does not legitimize malicious use (just because you lie about someone doesn't mean you will be prosecuted that if there were to be a law enacted then free speech won't protect said lie), such as no liable, no threat of violence, no willfully scamming/swindling and no abuse of authoritative/alertive speech (as in saying fire in a theater when there is no fire).
I don't say it doesn't I don't say it does.
And liable isn't a crime? What's then stopping people from calling each other pedophiles which in turn causes them to lose jobs/relationships/etc.
Should Alex Jones have been convicted of liable due to his claims surrounding Sandy hook?
I'm no free speech absolutist, as you'll end up eating your own tail, but I'm a 100% believer in free speech that does not legitimize malicious use (just because you lie about someone doesn't mean you will be prosecuted that if there were to be a law enacted then free speech won't protect said lie), such as no liable, no threat of violence, no willfully scamming/swindling and no abuse of authoritative/alertive speech (as in saying fire in a theater when there is no fire).