Holocaust denial writer jailed for five years

Regarding your words: "...(of all things)..." concerning slander of a "favorite website".

Those words stunned me because it seems to me that websites are the average person's only opportunity to voice his opinion to a large audience, and are thus of great importance to the preservation of our right of free speech.

You mentioned misinterpreting Holmes' ruling, and, at the time, I thought to ask you about a specific scenario but became involved in other matters.

The specific scenario I had in mind involves a "last minute", but well publicized, slanderous (or libelous) attack on a major political candidate, so timed as to practically prohibit rebuttal and thus adversely affect an election. I envisioned such an attack being made against an internet entity, but one playing a role such as "Swift Boat Veterans" played in the last election.

Reading the following article, this morning,:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787913/posts

prompted me to bring up this matter again.

I wonder if you would change your opinion in such a situation?

You mentioned misinterpreting Holmes' ruling

I should have said that differently. I didn't mean you misinterpreted Shenk, simply that the scenario is based on a popular misquote of his.

I wonder if you would change your opinion in such a situation?

I read the article. If anything, it reinforces my opinion. There were plenty of people in 2004 that wanted the Swift Boat Veterans sued for slander. What if it had been a criminal prosecution rather than a civil suit? What if the prosecutor was someone like Patrick Fitzgerald, or Ronnie Earle? They would have argued that the Swift Boat Veterans were causing irreparable harm to Kerry's campaign, and, given the right judge, could have had them silenced. Thankfully, the First Amendment prevents that. So long as no one is able to censor it, the internet makes it MORE difficult to mislead people, not less, as Dan Rather learned to his sorrow that very same year.

Off course free speech creates opportunities for people to say things that aren't true. Sometimes those things are even harmful. The same could be said of any other right. The 2nd Amendment does make it easier for irresponsible or criminal individuals to arm themselves. The 4th makes it easier for criminals to hide evidence or contraband from the authorities. None of this make these rights any less valid. Liberty carries with it inherent risks. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The timid man prefers the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.