"Can" implies that that's not an absolute, right? That there are times where slander and libel aren't being used to "expose bad acts that need to be exposed", but rather to be used maliciously in order to benefit the slanderer at the expense of the slandered.
I suppose I'm just curious about a hypothetical, like... I'm wondering where you might draw a line, so maybe entertain me with this for a sec?
Let's say you and I work together, and for whatever reason, I don't like you. Maybe you and I are competing for a promotion, or maybe an interaction rubbed me the wrong way, doesn't matter - I want you gone. So, I decide to spread some nasty rumors about you throughout the office - you leer at co-worker's children, you're aggressively sexual with the women in the office, shit like that. Whatever I've come up with to disparage you is bullshit, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say I put a lot of effort into this and that you end up getting let go because of it. Maybe the rumors even happen to jump from your co-workers over to your friends/family. Some of them stop talking to you. Perhaps other businesses in the industry hear about it and opt not to hire you, either.
So you believe that maliciously spreading lies to get someone fired, ruin their friendships and cause them to struggle to find another job should be legally permissible. Gotcha, cheers!
We can have freedom, or we can have safety, but we cannot have both. I value freedom over safety, and so a nanny state that would investigate the telling of lies seems tyrannical to me, yes.
"That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau, 1849
For what it's worth, Thoreau was writing from the relative safety of his friend's property. I can't help but wonder if his opinion on the utility of government would have been different if, while Emerson was out, somebody decided to come along and trash his cabin for fun.
Meanwhile, the old saw about those who trade freedom for safety deserving neither Liberty nor safety actually referred to the colonial government considering allowing the Penn family to forgo taxes in perpetuity in exchange for deploying some mercenaries to fight on the colonial frontier. Benjamin Franklin was talking to the legislature, and reminding them that they have the liberty of setting the law as they see fit - by giving up that Liberty via a guarantee of perpetual freedom from taxation for temporary safety, they (The legislature) would deserve neither.
In practice, government is forever a balancing act between liberties and safety. One can start at social contract theory and work one's way out from there if one wants a formal grounding, or one can go the common sense route and understand that if you go around cheating people, eventually people are going to gang up on you because we are social creatures.
Your historical recollection is incorrect. Thoreau was a strong proponent of limited government and it's utility. What he was against was tyrannical overreach and abuse of power, such as, for example, a gov't investigating who lied in a spat between coworkers.
I suppose I'm just curious about a hypothetical, like... I'm wondering where you might draw a line, so maybe entertain me with this for a sec?
Let's say you and I work together, and for whatever reason, I don't like you. Maybe you and I are competing for a promotion, or maybe an interaction rubbed me the wrong way, doesn't matter - I want you gone. So, I decide to spread some nasty rumors about you throughout the office - you leer at co-worker's children, you're aggressively sexual with the women in the office, shit like that. Whatever I've come up with to disparage you is bullshit, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say I put a lot of effort into this and that you end up getting let go because of it. Maybe the rumors even happen to jump from your co-workers over to your friends/family. Some of them stop talking to you. Perhaps other businesses in the industry hear about it and opt not to hire you, either.
What's your stance on that sort of speech?