Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I read through it and it says part of the document has been admitted to be true. I don't understand: You asked whether Twitter had any basis for marking it false. I said the basis was (at least in part) a major fact-checking organization. I'm not sure how the above is a response to that. Also, can you provide some basis to your claim? Every lie is partly true; someone who says things that are 'partly true' is a lia…
> In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the law Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner. What happened right now was action by a black box on commentary from another black box. We know before wars, s…
> Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner.
Generally, the most important aspect of free speech is that you can say what you want about the government; there's no such thing as libeling it. Otherwise, libel is a means of the government restricting speech and harassing opponents - a means commonly used by dictators, including Modi.
The idea of trusting the government to control political speech or be the artbiter of truth seems to ignore the obvious, well-established risks.