Being the leftist libertarian that I am, I have a certain affinity for what Jay is writing about these days, like this one, on the theme on better regulation of the regulation of free speech - though we are not on the same page in any ways and I think he wanders in unnecessary and potentially unhelpful areas. And I wrote the following comment and, being uncaffeinated as yet, thought it worth saving as I suspect Jay's comment function may be unintentionally set back at "Abyss Mode":

I was going to make a point about the third [class of free speech protections - libel, copyright and incitement arguments]. You can't say that it is not the role of the state when it reaches inciting hatred as that is at the extreme criminal law and at a lesser point still within mischief or breach of the peace. But all enforceable by the state though the court and police systems and not administrative tribunals. And libel is not about property, it is about reputation - though they are connected. Civil society has a layer of regulation that is about decency on a human to human level. Loss of that respect leads to many wrongs including potential loss of property values. But it is not limited to that. A poor and unknown person without wealth can be libeled if, through the status, dignity is denigrated. This becomes a useful tool in creating a civic identity and standards of speech and interrelation - not socialism but civic republicanism. Without that, there is only true moral relativism, that Satan spawn of Ayn Rand's wacko ideas.

See, libertarians will never admit that they are the actual source of moral relativism, the loss of community standards of decency and acceptability that carries with it a myriad of complications. Well, I suppose that that is because libertarians will admit nothing, it being just a selfish day dream in the guise of a philosophy wrapped in the illusion of a political theory.