[abeppu]

I think the swerve that makes free speech absolutism less credible now than a generation ago is the prominence that lies and misinformation have gained in the discourse.

I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views.

When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?

[raxxorraxor]

That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.

Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech.

> When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?

There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result.

Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.

[abeppu]

My claim is that intentionally dishonest speech shouldn't obviously enjoy the same protections as earnest speech.

> That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.

That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...

- In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false.

- The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity.

- The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity.

- Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies.

- The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required.

- The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth.

Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth."

We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods.

If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.

[spiderfarmer]

If he won't cite any literature, maybe he can find the Truth Social post he bases his worldview on.