That's a fair point; I know there's a lot of truth in the quote “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” and I've seen plenty examples of major damage caused thanks to the phenomenon (Which has no doubt helped with the arguments advocacating for censorship.)

I'd say a couple of things.

In a situation where we do have free speech I believe the truth does overall win out in the end; very often it takes a frustratingly long time and often comes too late to repair the damages caused by the lie but I believe that that overall, if you'll excuse the horrendous remark, "the truth does find a way".

I also know that the current lies and propaganda we so often see are an absolute stain on these past decades and I'm also in agreement that something needs to be done. Whatever it is however I'd like to see it built on the free speech principle rather than against it, even if the principal isn't without its flaws.

One thing I would say is that while it might be true that truth eventually finds a away, the lies can do a lot of damage in the meantime, and can in fact be used to prevent the truth from coming out.

For example, take fascist propaganda... the lies are effective, and if left unchecked, can convince people to support fascist leaders, who will then block free speech, preventing the truth from winning out.

This is a form of the paradox of tolerance..

Perhaps the fixes for the problems we have shouldn't involve some patchwork bodge to the laws that align our principles but should instead start at investigating why we need these bodges in the first place? It's an unthought out idea but between existing slander laws, a reasonable expectation of common sense/reason from your average citizen and a lack of corruption in government; I'm wondering if setting up the systems to ensure those aforementioned areas are solid would take care of the free speech problems for us.

> a reasonable expectation of common sense/reason from your average citizen

Half the US has voted for someone explicitly denying science, half the UK has voted for Brexit, in some areas of Germany 25% vote for people just a few beards short of Nazis, Bolsonaro is still in office. The "average citizen" can not be trusted to vote in their own interest or in the interest of the future generations.

> The "average citizen" can not be trusted to vote in their own interest or in the interest of the future generations.

Maybe not, but in a democratic system the right to choose trumps any ideas about what you or some elitist group thinks is best for future generations.

Are you advocating for undemocratic system?

For the third time.

> your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty.