"Abuse" is mostly subjective.

There need to be equal repercussions for fraudulently claiming abuse, too. Search SLAPP to learn more about the current lack of repercussions against wealthy entities suing journalists.

SLAPP may be too strong but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable position that libel rights be enforceable at reasonable levels of financial risk. Some lawsuits are lost on technicalities and missing a technicality shouldn’t force someone to pay not only their own legal bills but also the journalist’s. There should be a very high bar for having to pay someone else’s legal fees, especially in situations where a publisher can use disproportionate resources in representation. The NYT is likely to spend over 10x on their defence as I spend on my case if they libel me. Do we want the financial bar to being able to defend oneself to raise by an order of magnitude?

Most laws are subjectively applied. That's what happens in societies made of men with opinions and not made of robots, always has been, always will be, the case of free speech isn't an exception

Nope, nothing subjective about the examples I gave there. Try harder.

I have no idea how Europe handles libel, but it's interesting how Singapore uses it. The Prime Minister regularly sues people who accuse him of corruption. Most of it is deserved, but the requirements for libel are so low that conviction is more likely than not.

Interestingly, if fined more than $2,000 (most libel fines are in $100,000's), you are no longer able to hold political office in Singapore. That's also true in the UK (no idea the threshold - I think it's a prison term?).

Interesting way to silence any opposition.

I agree with the sentiment, but only because the government restrictions on speech are tested in courtrooms that have at least some degree of impartiality and transparency.

The problem with "Free Speech with consequences" arises when the consequences are increasingly policed by private corporations. Yes, host your own web server etc etc etc, but in reality, Twitter and Facebook really are the new town square.

> f you have a huge following and use Twitter to say without evidence "restaurant xyz uses rat meat don't go eat there, or 'Tim Cook has AIDS and will die in 3 months'", then that would be protected by free speech like the right-wingers want it.

ridiculous strawman. thats called defamation and you will be sued everywhere for it.

But the thing is, defamation would be legal under absolute free speech. Nobody could sue for it.

Perhaps "free speech absolutism" isn't quite the right framing here, but more "First Amendment absolutism," with all the known bounds and checks (defamation, libel, incitement to violence). It does give a US-centric bias, but may better convey the meaning and intent.

"Go lynch this man" is speech, but is not protected under the First Amendment. And the First Amendment gives much broader protection than most countries' legal systems do.

The first amendment does not protect anyone who says fire in a theater. Dont make the argument more absurd that it needs to be.

Remember the time Elon Musk called someone a "pedo guy"?

And he was sued.

I believe you can sue anyone for anything. I don't think anything happened except people wasted time. There were no outright consequences for calling someone "pedo guy". The threat of law suits has certainly not bothered Alex Jones much.

You've got more free speech if you've got more money.

https://www.gawker.com/how-things-work-1785604699

You have got more of everything when you have more money. Thats not a very insightful observation to make.

Hey, a western guy in Japan thinks his opinion is worth something!