>>I disagree on this one. The countries that have a law that forbids people to deny the holocaust have a very good reason for that law. Sure, those who deny the holocaust are ridiculed by many of us, but not by all. Not all people have enough knowledge about the holocaust, either due to young age or due to a lack of interest. The law must prevent that these people start doubting the horrors of WWII. The effect could be devastating. I think freedom of speech is about freedom to express an opinion, not about a freedom to deny the real facts or introduce unreal 'facts'. It is not a right to lie.
>
>Depends what you lie about. 1st amendment protects lying:
>
>In essence, the news organization owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to even lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
>
>In it's opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

I remember one such case, and probably the one referenced.
2 TV journalists had done a serious expose of bovine growth hormone (legal in U.S. but not many other places) and the station got heavy heat before airing from Monsanto (or whichever company produces the chemical) and the network didn't publish the show.
They tried hard to get the commentators to change it and tell half-truths and eventually the station made a mistake that allowed the commentators to sue. They won (jury verdict, if I remember) but it was overturned on appeal on the basis stated above.

Too bad it didn't get much publicity (but you don't have to guess how come < s >) because then news might have started to state "We do not lie on our news broadcasts".