Reply #10: I strongly disagree with your conclusion, sir

[speltwon]

It is up to, in a nation where the PEOPLE are the "decider", to make the determination of who is, and isn't the liar, what his motivations, are, etc. If the govt. can decide "you are a liar. You can't express your viewpoint of what the facts are, because we THE GOVERNMENT have determined you to be a liar", then power is taken away from the people.

The idea that the govt. is that decider, and that they can use prior restraint to choose who does and doesn't get to voice this stuff is odious to me. I refuse to cede such power to the govt., and fortunately, in my great country, I don't have to .

As a citizen, not a subject my govt. gives me great respect - even the right to carry a firearm (many countries would never allow that), spew the most offensive speech that would be criminalized in many countries, etc.

If I slander or defame somebody, they have the right, as the injured party to take that case to court and let the finder of fact determine the validity of the claim.

But there will be no prior restraint.

What your analysis fails to acknowledge is that in your conclusion, you rest WITH GOVERNMENT the POWER to make the determination of whose speech, whose ideas make the grade so to speak, and censor the ones that don't.

I refuse to cede to such govt. authority. Thankfully, I do not have to