> Governments should not have the power to silence their critics
I agree completely, but we are talking about the case when they are trying to silence a lie. That's different than critics.
> Governments should not have the power to silence their critics
I agree completely, but we are talking about the case when they are trying to silence a lie. That's different than critics.
In theory, a deliberate, malicious false statement against a public figure would count as libel; but in practice basically everything is allowed. This prevents politicians from intimidating their critics with lawsuits.
EDITED TO ADD: In fact in the US there is pretty much a constant stream of false statements about every politician, and I can't recall any politician ever winning a libel case. Devin Nunes is trying currently, and basically making a fool of himself.
"This content has been determined to be fake: [evidence or link to evidence]"
That would be my preference.
So
If you were to slap a content disclaimer saying 'this content is fake', they would just use that as fuel and proof that the government doesn't want you to know the truth. The lie directly harms people by simply existing even if you add a disclaimer.