Liar

is a lie really a lie if you mean it at the time?

A good on-point article

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/shadowland-introduction/610840/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cr&utm_content=content&fbclid=IwAR01Qt5vnf8_DXyMYcaq-xlT9j-NS_M5OwR5Inhs5AFI5hZ6W9zNewP7a7I

Basically, viral disinformation is winning the war on reality. The orthodox theory has long been that hate speech, conspiracy theories, etc. should be permitted but countered with "better speech." But that unfortunately just doesn't play out in reality.

"Better speech" is repeatedly tuned out, ignored, ridiculed, trolled and rejected by those who are upset with the state of the world or simply intellectually incapable of processing it. Changing your mind is much more difficult than maintaining belief in comforting lies.

We see this everywhere on the internet and certainly on ImgFlip.

What's the solution? Aggressive content moderation.

Private companies have ***no obligation*** to feature content that they don't want to. For example: CNN doesn't have to give Milo Yiannopoulos a TV show, and FOX News doesn't have to give Ta-Nehisi Coates a primetime speaking slot.

The same principle translates into social media. ImgFlip has no obligation to sponsor content that parrots the beliefs that Trump won the election, that face masks don't save lives, that Jews were responsible for 9/11, that blacks are genetically inferior and that women belong in the kitchen. Currently, ImgFlip as whole appears to be willing to censor the very most violent and hateful content but lets much of the rest slide.

But certainly, stream mods bear no such obligation and many of us are building streams where such vile content is not allowed.

I mean, if it's something big, like saying vaccines cause autism or denying the holocaust, freedom of speech shouldn't protect that, but otherwise I kinda guess so

no...not really

Everything should be, but lies should not be in a court of law.
They are only words. Words can't hurt anyone, and if the words do, it is because the person decided to be offended by it.

Yeah that’s not how it works, words can hurt, and just because you’ve never gone through anything dealing with this doesn’t mean it’s like that.

What if intentionally false information causes someone to act in a way that harms themselves or others?

That is the responsibility of the person causing the harm. Words can not make someone do something, that person chooses to do it.

Words tell us what's what, who's who, and how's how. Words define our understanding of actions.

But each person is still free to choose.
I can tell you to do any number of things, it is only you that chooses to act on what you have been told.
It is a four letter word these days, but it is called "personal accountability".

And if you tell me an innocent person running towards me is an armed rapist and murderer?

If you choose to do something based on that information, what ever comes of your actions is your responsibility because you chose to take that action.

And the person who lied to me should be punished as harshly.

So then how is that not impeding freedom of speech? The right outlined in the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute. The common example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

At the outset you mentioned "decid[ing] to be offended." That's what's called the Offense Principle, which is only sometimes used when limiting freedom of speech. The other is the Harm Principle, which I agree with. Words can be used to harm, and that's different than being offensive.

Have a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio. The violation of the law is in intention of inciting imminent lawless action. Not the speech.

Yes of course. Who is to say what is true? Nobody gets to control the narrative. W/o the ability to disagree even with lies.. ya can't fight the bullshit when the government is the liar.

Do members of the government have the right to lie?

they do lie. We tolerate it from our politicians. I think we need to say no lying on the job and require them to be honest by policing their narratives.

Another question... If "who is to say what is true," then who is to say the government lies?

We can find out what is true. The point of saying "who is to say what is true" is to prevent anyone from having a monopoly on the subject.

When you use the term "narratives," how do you differentiate it from "facts?"

Narratives are story telling speculation w/o doing the investigation first to find what the evidence says is true. It's an indifference to the perfection of truth.