It seems like the narrative of the populace is determined by who's voice reaches the broadest in such a case would disparities in the means through which this happens would be morally suspect ? In such a case is there an ethical imparitive on society to reduce or eliminate discrimination in means of mass communication ?
Specifically how diplomatic dialogue functions and if it alone can be effective in conclusion and ensuring fulfilment of international agreements
Freedom of speech is the main human right that has been used to justify a right to the internet or a platform but it doesn't seem to make sense since speech is about ability to express rather than being heard
In the book Reputation and Defamation by Lawrance McNamara defines it as
> Reputation = a person’s standing in the community based on moral judgment
And defines defamation as
> Defamation = a statement that harms reputation by lowering a person in the eyes of society
However truth is a defense to Defamation and the likes
So the broader question is If reputation is about moral judgment, why should truth always be a defence?
Even true statements can:
Destroy someone’s life
Expose private facts
Reflect unfair or outdated moral standards
People who make laws that do reference identities usually have a list of idealised identities and other identities become *undesirable.*
Is it possible to have a society that just didn't and didn't clearly need to re evaluate which people are allowed to claim discrimination every century through conflict ?