XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: JW@jw.com   
      
   On 7/16/2023 12:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:   
   >   
   > Such speech suppression has been practiced in America for centuries   
      
   "Centuries" means at least two centuries or since at least 1823.   
   I sort of doubt that sort of thing has gone on that long.   
      
   > and in many cases has proven valuable.  Would you have had the Manhattan   
   designs   
   > and progress reports made public in Life Magazine?   
      
   The Manhattan project was top secret.  That's not the same   
   thing as suppressing information that already leaked out.   
      
   > Would you have insisted on publishing pictures of FDR in his chair,   
   > of every grimace on his face?   
      
   I would not have supported the publication itself, but if a person   
   had such pictures I would have supported his obvious constitutional   
   right to publish them. At the time, the press had the good graces to   
   respect FDR and "self-censor" his condition.  Voluntary self-suppression   
   of speech as a matter of professional courtesy is not the same thing as   
   government suppression.   
      
   > Would it have been sound policy for us to have regularly   
   > informed the Soviets of our WW III battle plans?   
   >   
   I doubt that such top secret information was ever in private   
   hands.  No, it would not have been "sound policy" but that's   
   a whole 'nuther subject, a strawman argument, a red herring.   
      
   > Certainly one is free to lie if one wants but that would require consent.   
      
   No, it does not require anyone's consent for people to publicly lie.   
   Absent libel laws which allow damages for deliberate lies concerning   
   facts about others that damage their reputations, people have a   
   constitutional right to publish lies.  Even under libel laws, people   
   have a right to speak ill of others if what they say is only incorrect   
   opinions rather than false facts.   
      
   > We know there are lots of folks who believe lies like who really   
   > shot JFK, why Challenger really came down, or the election was > rigged.    
   Let them believe those things if it helps them sleep at   
   > night but I don't think anybody should have the right to   
   > deliberately lie or spread unproven claims with impunity.   
   >   
   Then you believe a lie.  Nobody cares about your belief.   
   What you believe is that government should have oppressive   
   totalitarian powers to suppress speech that offends you.   
   Well, big news flash, bucko, the whole purpose of the First   
   Amendment is to protect people's right to say things that   
   offend other people.   
      
   People absolutely have a constitutional right to publicly   
   say all they want about "those things".  People absolutely   
   have a free speech right to "spread unproven claims with   
   impunity."  If you think somebody is spreading lies or   
   unproven claims, the remedy is not to suppress speech.   
   The remedy is even more speech to counter what they say.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)