Fanatic partisans of free speech assume an absolute immunity that is not implied in the “right.” It may, and probably should, be true that one should not go to jail just for saying something. But that little ”just” contains barbs.
For one thing, free speech does not imply anonymous free speech. The speaker should be connected with the words. Anyone who shouts “fire” in a crowded theater has no right to not be identified as the instigator of the panic. Privacy is not part of the equation.
Similarly, free speech does not mean “free of consequences.” If someone dies or is injured as a result of what someone says, blame should be assigned. Legal procedures should be involved. Nobody has the right to injure someone else with made up fantasies.
Basically, the main flaw in our free speech “rights” interpretation may be that shield of consequence. It should be much easier to sue for damages in the case of deliberate lies and imaginary accusations.
That’s where it gets sticky, unfortunately, for authoritarian countries restrict anything which may “damage the state”. Yet free speech should have some legal guardrails, particularly with respect to those injured by false accusations. Set a low bar for most private libel action.
I’m disturbed not only by the current excess of free speech, but also even more by the lack of common sense and established fact as counter balance.
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 