What I'm trying to explore here is the most prominent objection to free-speech which is people complaining about libel and slander.
There is something to that, but each case wants to be considered on its own merits. There is no need for a law against it, though. The defamation that we give off eventually falls back on us. People make defamatory speeches, no matter if a law forbids it. They can't be stopped and probably, as I see it at the moment, laws against something make people break them all the more. By their very nature, prohibitions challenge resistance; after all, people want to test whether the arm of the law really reaches them or what can be done about it.
... people constantly want a law for this or that, for the simple reason that they want others to make it easy for them to see their wishes fulfilled. But the moment such law is exercised to their own detriment, some may wish to put the genie back in the bottle.
Would we really want to live in a world where nobody was allowed to speak "untruth"?
Probably not.
Talking about truth or untruth is often counterproductive. The word "truth" is used inflationarily. And talking is probably also overrated:) I can only talk to someone in a direct relationship, but not about someone with whom I have nothing to do and whom I have no opportunity to reach. The only effective method for me is that of spontaneous artistry in dealing with situations I encounter. Neither pity nor anger helps me. Pity is perhaps even the sharper edge ...
Would we really want to live in a world where every statement was required to be a demonstrable fact?
I'd rather stop talking :)
Such desire for evidence speaks volumes about how much confidence someone has in their experience, observation and self-respect. The more evidence I cite from sources, the more such evidence is cited from the other point of view, and so it can be stated that everyone is prepared to believe only their own found (or invented) evidence anyway, but finds doubt disturbing. The "expertism" that is so widespread nowadays is characteristic of wanting to be beyond doubt. While everyone argues about what is proven or unproven, life just goes on its way and cares little.
In my experience, calling for the end of the world has not stopped the world from continuing to exist. If you ask me, it depends on whether I have a fundamentally positive or negative worldview. I have found, in many arguments with my mother, that her hate speech was basically insignificant, because her words were not followed by actions that caused too much harm. She could spray a lot of venom, but if you met her with enough patience and kindness, she usually stopped. Sometimes, however, it only helped to walk away and let her cook on her own.
Unfortunately hate becomes dangerous when people in power take advantage of it by taking action against what they hate or fear. They can infect whole nations and what we observe right now, "the whole world".
Thanks, but I am not able to hear the spoken words clearly. If I'd be a native speaker, it would probably be no problem, but I am not an English native. So I cannot give you an answer. Sorry.
Thanks for the note.
It's basically a conversation about how freedom of speech is freedom to lie.
And the only "fix" for this "problem" is NOT legal restrictions of freedom of speech, but rather simply educating the public about what an ad hominem attack is.
The examples raised were mostly regarding public accusations of unverifiable heinous and atrocious crimes.
These accusations are often so shocking that people react instinctively to reject the person who is accused, regardless of any actual evidence.
This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "the liar's dividend".