 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. The bottom line is, you know, really kind of tests the implications of what is free speech, you know. And I thought it might be worth talking about a little. Here she wrote a story and she didn't name him, but it was pretty clear she was talking about him and it totally destroyed his reputation. And for a libertarian, is free speech, should it always be sacrosanct? Or should there be some limits on being able to say untrue things about somebody else that might cause them harm? What do you guys think about that? Well, Jason, I mean, I think you know about free speech protects us against the conduct and the actions of the government, not against private individuals. Well, except that this is the government coming in by awarding damages, right, for the actions of private guests. Because Amber Heard's not the one who's literally not letting him work. It's somebody else who's not letting him work based upon the reputational damage that she's done to him, right? So that's literally the government coming in and saying you don't have a right to say something that might harm somebody else. No, Jason, no, no. This is what is happening here, okay? This woman made a statement. It destroys his life. Let's use that word for the time being. It destroys his life. He has a right to go to court and seek redress of that. The government is not telling him to do or not to do anything. The government is just saying, yes, based upon the evidence, we have determined that you did destroy his character. And as a result of destroying his character, you should pay. Free speech is not without consequences. This is the point. People think they could say any damn thing they please. Yes, you can, but they have consequences to saying any damn thing you please. And that's what free speech is. So it's not that the government is stopping Amber from speaking, Amber Heard from speaking. It is she must understand that she have a right to speak as much as she wishes, but there are consequences to that speech. That's all. Liam, let me flip it around a little. So in the case like if Amber Heard came and took a dump on your bed, then she's literally violated your property rights. So it's the property rights that the government has given you that are being violated. And that's why the government is stepping in because she has literally violated your property rights. But in the case of Johnny Depp's reputation, does Johnny Depp have the same property right in his reputation that he does on his bedsheets? From Amber Heard being able to come over and take a dump on the bedsheets, right? In other words, do you have a right to your image that's in other people's heads, right? Yes. Because that's essentially what's being assaulted here, right? Is the image that somebody else has in your head and what somebody else may have said about you that's causing that image to change in somebody else's head. You have a right to your reputation. That is why companies all over America spend billions of dollars protecting the name of the organization because your reputation has value. Under our laws, yeah, but I'm just saying under a libertarian principle of free speech, right? Do you have, I mean, because there's two different things here. One is the laws that our government has versus should you just have a right to free speech, right? I mean, from a libertarian perspective, right? Well, I do not believe there's anything in society that can occur without consequences of some kind. Okay, so you have a right to free speech. I have a right to speech, so do you. But it cannot be without consequences. I cannot say, you know, Jason, I know you do XYZ, blah, blah, blah, blah, stuff like that with no consequence. And I should just be able to walk away and say, okay, it's over. That's right. Free speech, right? No. It must have consequences. You're trying to tell me that it should be absolute. I'm trying to question whether or not the property right of your image and somebody else's head is the same as the sheets on your bed, right? I mean, the sheets on your bed, you literally have a property right to, and that's why somebody can't violate it. But how you're perceived by somebody else is not quite the same thing. That's all I'm saying. So I'm not actually saying necessarily that there shouldn't be any libel laws, but I'm questioning. I guess I'm maybe playing devil's advocate here on, should you be able to sue somebody because of how they may tarnish your image? And also, T, that brings up the question of motivation. I mean, what if you say something like, oh, I think he did something terrible to her and you actually had, you know, a good intent, right? Does that mean that because you're mistaken, and therefore you've altered the image and somebody else's head of you that you should not be allowed to say that or that you should be responsible for, I guess, damages? I don't know. It's kind of, and how do you measure the damage as well? Jason, that's what we have the courts for. These things have to be adjudicated. I understand the point you're asking, but these things still have to be adjudicated because there's no such thing as absolute free speech. There's no such thing. Even in the libertarian world, even the libertarian world, I assume we're not going to allow people to yell and scream fire in a crowded theater when there's no such fire. I assume we're not going to allow that. It's not absolute? Yeah, I think, yeah, in that case, it's, yeah, that is an interesting one, because if you yell fire in a crowded theater and it's fraudulent that you're yelling fire in a crowded theater and so people get hurt and killed. Then you're actually dealing with actual physical damage, not just what somebody's thinking in somebody else's head, but you're actually literally dealing with the damage that causing everybody to run and trample each other and stuff like that. So, yeah, I'm not 100% sure. I know, unfortunately, I didn't look this up beforehand, but I know Walter Block has made this argument as well that, you know, do you really have the right to, you know, do you have the right to say something even if it's false, you know, like if you say, oh, I think the meals at that restaurant are terrible, right? Then, you know, at what point does that cross the line, you know, as far as defaming that restaurant, right? Does it say, okay, I saw a cockroach in the food when you didn't see a cockroach in the food? Okay, at that point, it's just a flat out lie. But even then, is that something that reputation should alone of the person saying the lie should be what regulates it or should it be something where we have the heavy hand of government come in and play referee on what everybody says? But Jason, if in the process, okay, if in the process of your speech, you're destroying my livelihood, which I use to feed my family, maintain my home and all these other things and that kind of stuff, that has to have value. It must have some value. So if that person has a right to say what the hell you want about me, that's fine. But my reputation has some value. And if you destroy my livelihood in the process of your free speech, that cannot go unchallenged. Well, I guess what would happen nowadays if somebody said that they thought because of your views, you're a homophobe and then suddenly everybody in Hollywood won't give you a job. Should they not be able to give you a job? Now, whether it's right or wrong, maybe they thought you were homophobic. I mean, at some point, it's not just the person doing the damage who's saying it. It's also how the information is received, right? And so should somebody be able to say, because in that case, it causes somebody massive damage in Hollywood because they can't get a job because everybody thinks they're a homophobe. So should they be able to sue whoever called them a homophobe? Yes. So in that case, does it matter then at some point, if we have very irrational society where the standards are such that if you simply don't like, you know, a certain type of speech and they say, oh, that guy's a conservative, should they be able to sue them then for saying they're conservative because now in Hollywood, they can't get a job because they're a conservative. What does it damage there? Because if nobody will hire them once it's out that they're a conservative, should they be able to say that when they know it's going to cause them damage of being able to get a job, right? Go ahead, Tim. I'm sorry. Go ahead. In your example, are they a conservative? They just don't want it getting out? I guess we can take it either way, whether they are or aren't. No, they are. Let's say they are. Somebody calls them out, says they are. They no longer can get a job in Hollywood. Now, who's going to sue who or maybe nobody sues anybody? Well, how do you measure if somebody's a conservative, right? I mean, it may be that a guy like Elon Musk used to be a lefty and now suddenly he's a conservative today. Who measures whether he's a conservative but because he's been called a conservative and let's say he wanted to act. Now, he can't get a job to act, right? Is that an economic harm that was caused by the person who maybe, you know, that's their honest opinion that he's now a conservative, even though by traditional values, he's not really a conservative, I think. So, I mean, part of the damage is caused by the people hearing it versus just the person saying it, right? You know what I mean? It's not completely, you know, like if she comes and takes a dump on your sheets, there's no question. She's completely violated your property rights. There is a damage there, a material damage, but when it's damage that's measured in somebody else's mind, right? It's sort of like how do you, you know, we all like, you might hire the guy who says he's a conservative, but now the Hollywood person won't hire the person because they found out he's a conservative. So, you've done some damage to that person, maybe. Okay, okay, time out, time out. This was never about damage to his sheet property. Yeah, it wasn't. I'm still laughing. No, no, no, I'm trying to make the analogy to property rights, Tim. So, how did we define this property right? Well, okay. It doesn't necessarily have to be property that we are defamed over because, as Leon has pointed out, if you have damages to your ability to earn income, that's real. That's as just as real as if you were trampled in a crowded theater. It's exactly the same thing. Exactly. Thank you. In one instance, somebody fraudulently and they lied and caused a stampede that caused an injury physical. In another instance, somebody lied and caused damage to an individual, an innocent individual, but caused substantial economic hardship on them. That's a real damage. That's something that, yes, you can go to Cordova. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always.