>>1411892 According to the law, graphics are speech, not just art. So is saying "I am willing to pay for title of ownership in a skinny brown pre-teen female."
Either of the above fit under 1.a and 1.b
There can be no immunity from slander or libel except truth. This is established law going back to before the US existed and the IBOR cannot flaunt existing law and hope to survive scrutiny.
In example:
If I call you a vile name that has any negative impact on your life, I need to be able to prove, in a court of YOUR choosing that my assertion is factual. This is because injuries to you may be significant and your recourse should not be limited to making a rebuttal on-line to a false assertion I may have made weeks ago but which you have only just now discovered – the false assertion having taken root in the minds of all those who read it and noted that you had not challenged its truth and thus assumed that I HAD spoken truthfully.
We let our "media" get away with far too much … the recent misquoting of Trump in re: his "animal" comment is an example. That, clearly, was not merely a matter of "journalistic license." The intent of the biased quote is clearly to cause grievous harm to his reputation and standing in the community.
I draw the line at either of those.
The principles under which we ought to jointly live are actually long-established and, for the most part, functional. What needs to be done is to apply those pre-existing principles to current (and future) technology.