[S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce.
It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons?
Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position).
Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull.
Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences?
THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE