Comments by "R136a1" (@HR_8035_YEA) on "Should Freedom of Speech Extend to Social Media? (Part 1) || Peter Zeihan" video.

Facts are decided by courts and juries all the time. Do you have an issue with them being arbiters of truth?
7
@dougdupont6134 How can an assessment of truth be made without taking facts into consideration? In court the jury is the arbiter of truth. They may not always get it right but that's why there are checks and balances such as an appeal process. You already live in a world with lots of arbiters of truth whether you like it or not.
2
 @JakobIlar To suggest that words have no consequences is ridiculous. Get an education. There has never been an absolute right to free speech.
2
@adamperdue3178 That is akin to saying Trump cannot appeal his defamation case without once again committing defamation. Obviously that is not how things work in the legal system. The right to appeal is just one of the checks and balances that exist. An arbiter of truth does not need to be so black and white as you think. Some issues are grey. We can't really decide. In such cases where there is a degree of uncertainty, the arbiter could conclude there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. This happens all the time in courts. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But many matters can easily be determined as truthful or not just on the basis of evidence and facts. Take Trump's claim that the last election was rigged/stolen. Without any evidence in support and lots of evidence to the contrary it would be easy to establish that claim to be a lie. In fact it has already been established in court. That lie led to people being killed and maimed. Should it be permitted to be told without consequences? Imagine if your partner was one of the victims of January 6. Would you be defending Trump's 'right' to lie? I'll bet you would be pressing for an arbiter of truth, a court of law, to be locking the instigator up.
1