Ok, how about libelous speech that can ruin careers, creditworthiness etc?
I guess we can just all hope EVERYONE who matters will ignore anonymous libelous speech. But then, what if someone writes under a false name? In short, can some speech be harmful enough to warrant forced removal from the public record?
How about a leader inciting his followers to violence? Where are the limits of free speech?
Sure, there are limits of acceptable speech and those are even far below what you and I would call hate speech.
But wasting too much (any) time of the issue of what we should ban misses the issue that ultimately we can't really ban much. If we want to block something, maybe we need to do the social-media equivalent of hands-across-american or something.
But regardless if it's a "good" idea, blocking anything effectively is just hopes and prayers. Your pony is in the mail. Next!
If I were running things free speech would be absolute, including incitement. We already have laws against incitement, and they're only enforced against the people the government doesn't like.
Libel can be resolved through the courts. If you can demonstrate that you have been harmed by someone's untrue speech, then you can be granted restitution.
I guess we can just all hope EVERYONE who matters will ignore anonymous libelous speech. But then, what if someone writes under a false name? In short, can some speech be harmful enough to warrant forced removal from the public record?
How about a leader inciting his followers to violence? Where are the limits of free speech?