• John Richard
    link
    English
    -25 days ago

    Your example is bad faith, but I assume you know that already. If it isn’t, then I really don’t know if I can explain to someone that lacks mental acuity about over 50 years of case law on the subject. There is even more case law on libel & slander, but it sounds like reading isn’t your forte. However, if you’re capable of reading then I suggest you do so. But go on & pretend to be ignorant, or maybe you really are & if so then come back after you’ve actually read & studied the decisions by the courts and we can discuss what you think they got wrong.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 days ago

      No, I definitely cannot read. Can write, but can’t really read, sorry. My lack of mental acuity doesn’t help. Libel and slander? Oh my, I wonder what those words mean. Are they, perhaps, social constructs that exist to prevent the consequences of harmful communication? Like… Regulation of speech?? Like… laws? Wait, but isn’t speech supposed to be free??? Why are they taking away our rights like this???

      • John Richard
        link
        English
        04 days ago

        There are multiple differences with libel & slander, but again since you admit you have a lack of mental acuity, I’m not sure it would help explain them to you. By all means, since those are civil matters though sue the people that offend you in court & send me the docker numbers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 days ago

          Sorry dude. I know you really really want to be taken seriously, but it’s just not gonna happen. Defamation laws have been around for millennia (50 years of case law? Lol) and they’re just one tiny example of regulation of speech. If you don’t believe political propaganda on social media should be regulated exactly the same way, you probably lack the mental acuity to understand the concepts of cause and effect. Or you’re just arguing in bad faith as well. We could go on for hours about the excesses of extra-woke cancel culture and how they are detrimental to discourse, but since you decided to open with “Nazi propaganda is free speech” I’m pretty sure it would be a huge waste of time.

          • John Richard
            link
            English
            03 days ago

            Defamation laws are a civil matter. You have to sue someone & prove in court that you were defamed. There are also specific laws for public figures & case law for things said on Twitter/X. Furthermore, what is propaganda to you might be what some of them legitimately believe. You can’t sue people for believing in a different ideology. For example, you can’t sue someone for liking chocolate ice cream because you like vanilla, nor can you sue people because they believe that God doesn’t exist. I’d love to see you take it to court though & send me the docker number once you do, so I can be amused.