The problem is that it isn't easy to define harmful falsehoods. What if a particular administration feels that it's criticism is a harmful falsehood? What if they feel that something like a Bush = Hitler poster is a harmful flasehood, or hate-speech? What if they feel that it is endangering to his life, or to national security?
Banning hate-speech as harmful falsehoods could open up a nasty can of worms. Who decides what is hateful and what is justified? Who decides what is just ignorance and what is a harmful falsehood?
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
|