The argument against it is not to dampen the freedom to think for oneself, but to dampen the flooding of media with bogus distortions. It cannot be gainsaid that the power of purchase has replaced thepower of rational persuasion. This means, for example, if Palin drums up the dough, she has the right to assert Obama has been promoting death panels, even though the idea is egregiously slanderous and false.

But ok. I honor and respect the underlying core principle that folks should think for themselves and not be hiundered therefrom. How about, then, we make false statements on public matters an actionable offense? This does not constrain the freedom to speak, merely the freedom to lie harmfully. Seems to me at least that full responsibility to slander and libel laws should apply.


A