Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?
In the US, the restrictions are left to things like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Because that is harmful to society.
The focus should be on the real damage of the speech - not the “authenticity”. Also we should not restrict people from expressing their opinions regardless of whether or not they are authentic.
These ideas are meant to prevent a tyrannical government from jailing individuals because it doesn’t like its speech.
Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?
As with all laws and regulations interpretations are handled by the judiciary.
I like the phrasing OP makes because it grounds the discussion of free speech in a more reasonable fashion rather than nitpicking about some extreme situation.
The meaning of “true, authentic, and accurate” is easier to twist than “harm to society” - suddenly proclaiming trans people exist is a crime because it is not “true”
As stated I like the phrasing OP used. You are free to use another phrasing. What I’m not going to do is get into a debate on how to precisely define the terms used. One can nitpick any phrasing of any law/regulation. That’s why there are lawyers in every society. But I’m not engaged in a legal discussion at this time. If you don’t like OP’s wording then don’t use it.
I’m arguing the principles of “is this speech virtuous” as a prerequisite vs “is this speech harmful” as a disqualifier - not the exact definition. Whatever virtue test you use for the speech, it can be more easily abused than a harmfulness test.
Why are you making such an argument? This is a rhetorical question I don’t actually care what the answer is. It’s fascinating you feel the need to chime in about this when all I did is like someone’s way of stating things. No one cares about the pedantic nitpicking you are engaged with. Well, no one should care.
In the US, the restrictions are left to things like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Because that is harmful to society.
The focus should be on the real damage of the speech - not the “authenticity”. Also we should not restrict people from expressing their opinions regardless of whether or not they are authentic.
These ideas are meant to prevent a tyrannical government from jailing individuals because it doesn’t like its speech.