Let this fellow serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us, who, in trying to distinguish ourselves philosophically from the status quo, must also commit ourselves to a policy of truth. Ignorance of a law has never been enough of an excuse to justify breaking said law. Nor is it any better if such ignorance is willful.
This broken logic has never worked in our legal system, so why should we make exceptions anywhere else? Just because you may not agree (or understand) someone else’s positions does not mean you are afforded a special right to blatantly misrepresent their positions or their evidence. In that case, the commenter of this Hill Post thought it permissible to play with the facts.
I myself do not pretend to understand his reasoning. He may simply be ignorant or he may be doing this intentionally. He could very well be both. But for anyone who remembers the Rally for the Republic, it could scarcely be claimed that Dr. Paul “[kept] his mouth shut and his head down”.
What can we take away from this? It is, I think, rather obvious: no matter how discouraged you may become, no matter how disheartened you may already feel, no matter how strongly you think the first amendment gives you the luxury… you have no moral right to slander others. Doing so not only relegates our cause, but also unnecessarily limits a broad debate full of vibrant opinions to the safety of prescribed views and cheap talking points.
If the facts are on your side, you needn’t worry. To paraphrase Dr. Paul himself, vindication will not come because we can give a great speech, but because we’re broke. Reality has no bias.