There's a fine line between "free speech" and being an a$$. Having the freedom to be able to say whatever one wants doesn't mean that one should say whatever they want.
Maligning, spreading lies, or repeating unsubstantiated rumors about another person or group of people is never a good thing. One may have the right" to do it, but usually all it accomplishes is to make the one who says it to (temporarily) feel "big" while hurting/damaging others (sometimes permanently).
It is my belief that many (americans) abuse their "right to free speech". They hide behind 1st amendment, using it as a shield to disseminate their own personal agendas.
It's not free speech that promotes the spread of lies and disinformation - It's twisted partisan political strategies.
Because of the "supreme" legal fiction that money = speech; extremists on all sides can profit by manufacturing falsehoods that panic people into throwing cash at causes and candidates that do nothing to address actual needs of average people.
According to these propaganda hacks If you care about real facts and actually think for yourself, you're one of "them". Truth is always the enemy - and questions can't be allowed.
The U.S. probably has the most unfettered policy in the world on free speech and free press, but even this has some limits. Many people think there are no exceptions to what you can say and cannot say legally, but there are actually several. For example, you cannot publish child pornography. You can also not threaten to kill the President of the United States. That’s a federal crime and not free speech. You also cannot endanger others — such as when “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater” — when there is no fire.
You also can be charged with a crime if you commit libel or slander – that is, say or publish information that is wrong, damaging or untrue about another person or company. Even so, the bar is very high for the prosecution of libel and slander. It must be proved in a court of law that not only that what was said is untrue, but that there must also be “premeditated malicious intent” behind the statement. Thus, a newspaper or TV news show may report facts that turn out to be untrue, but is not necessarily libel or slanderous – it may have been just an honest mistake – and as we all know, this happens all the time in the media. We also know that many media players push this aspect of free speech to the limit, every day.
Another restriction on freedom of speech is false advertising. Again, we all know that many companies push this restriction to the limit, making all kinds of outrageous claims for their products. But here again, the bar is set very high for proving malicious intent. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution should always be taken seriously but unfortunately isn't.
We all have to decide for ourselves where the truth lies. The only alternative is totalitarianism - you believe what you are told to believe or you are shot.
Shuhak 