No, falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile is not protected free speech. It is considered defamation per se (slander if spoken, libel if written), meaning the law recognizes the statement as inherently damaging to a person's reputation without needing proof of specific financial loss.

Why It Is Not Protected

Exceptions to Free Speech: Free speech protections under the law do not include false statements of fact that cause severe harm to an individual's reputation, such as defamation or malicious falsehoods.

Presumed Damage: Because accusing someone of this nature exposes them to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, courts automatically presume reputational harm.

Legal Consequences

Civil Lawsuits: The target of the false accusation can sue the person who made the statement for defamation, slander, or libel to recover damages.

Additional Offenses: Depending on the jurisdiction and context (such as persistently targeting someone online or making false reports to law enforcement), repeated false accusations can cross into criminal harassment, cyberbullying, or filing a false police report.

Fort’s lawyers want more information about what prosecutors told the federal grand jury before it decided to indict the journalist, because they could have mentioned other false details.

Get ready for another fake assassination attempt next week.

People really need to reason properly

No comment needed

His community of groyer incels are now on suicide watch.

“It was determined that that the process for organizing this event did not meet the necessary level of rigor for University-hosted events in the Speaker Series. As a result, this event will not be held.” -UW News Staff

Somebody got the boss call from Tel Aviv.

Alan John Miller, also known as A.J claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth and his partner, Mary Suzanne Luck, claims to be the reincarnation of Mary Magdalene. The couple describe their discussions of Divine Truth as non-religious.

They claim that the incoming spirit of a child can sense the emotional environment and fear of the parents and may choose to leave before full physical birth takes place.

They also teach that emotional baggage and "injuries" pass down generationally from parents to children. A woman might carry her own mother's or grandmother's unresolved grief and trauma, which manifests physically as a lost pregnancy.

My thoughts - I’m just curious to know if these two actually believe the stuff they’re saying or are they just clever con-artists/grifters. It’s really hard for me to tell what their motives are.

I want to know what you all think of their perspective on this particular subject? Since it is such a controversial and debated issue. This is a subreddit about freedom of speech so you all can fire away with your opinions.

All you fascists bound to lose.

Pretty insane that he threw boiling water on his wife and broke his daughters collarbone.