I'm with Dennis here, but I'll note that Chomsky doesn't think there shouldn't be libel laws, he just won't use them himself. In his case, since he's a public figure, it would be hard for him to use them; in the US, public figures have to prove reckless indifference to the truth, a very high standard. In the UK, you don't have to meet such a high standard, public figures have more protection. jks > > hey, someone wants to spread lies must be prepared to pay for it. and > sorry, i can't feel too principled about that. > > kj khoo That's too bad -- because it's in these extreme cases where we find out who's really serious about free speech. Apart from libel (and even that's sketchy for some, including Chomsky, who on principle won't sue those who've blatantly lied about him) and incitement to violence, I say protect the right to lie about history. Otherwise, you allow the state to determine what's historically correct, and we've seen rather brutal examples of where that leads. DP <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/O=1/I=brandr/vday03/text/flow/*http://shopping.yahoo.com /shop?d=browse&id=20146735">Yahoo! Shopping</a> - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day