"According to the law, graphics are speech, not just art."
Copyright law disagrees with that, especially photographs. Besides, by law, you mean American law. IBOR impacts the world.
Graphics (without words), aren't speech per se. Otherwise, you'd be free to show blood, guts and gore to children publicly.
Graphics with words, is simply trying to use words that can be extracted independent of the graphics.
We don't have to remain verbatim traditional (and of course, we can't).
" So is saying "I am willing to pay for title of ownership in a skinny brown pre-teen female.""
I think you misunderstand the example I giving regarding the judge.
The judge's comment of speech is the person has to actually be making a point. Screaming into your eardrum HERPADERPADERP isn't me making a point. Sending you spam advertising isn't me making a point. Sending you spam, I'm not 'saying' anything, it's not speech.
If you have to break out the philosphers, pedants and lawyers to 'find a point', I guarantee you you're not making a point.
Otherwise what you're suggesting is I can make continuous drill noises at 60dbls at you, so long as I can convolute it as speech.
"There can be no immunity from slander or libel except truth"
You sound like an idealistic guarding ye olden legal traditions who hasn't been on the receiving end of frivilous lawsuits by crooks who use the argument 'but it's not the truth', which either goes:
A) You waste all your money in a costly legal battle and 'win', if by 'winning' you mean 'financially broke and destitute' (why the fuck do you think anti-SLAPP exists? Do some research).
B) You waste money and lose because your ancedotes of your word versus theirs isn't sufficient.
Anti-libel and anti-slander laws are only used by organisations with deep pockets. Do you lawsuit every fucking troll you encounter? I bet not; I bet you give them a cold shoulder or ignore them, or ban them from your platform.
"If I call you a vile name that has any negative impact on your life"
You can already do so anonymously. Even before the internet, anonymous letters are a thing. Crank calls. Burner phones.
So-called 'anti-libel' is merely a means for irate individuals to lawsuit people's balls off for profit.
Point to any politician. You can only call them corrupt because they're a 'public figure' - they don't get anti-libel protections like individuals do.
I've seen corrupt councils sue people for rightly reporting that they were abusing powers. By the time it gets to appeal, they're out of money. Good lawyers and money for legal defence doesn't grow on trees, and, PS
Right of reply allows them to refute allegations, so you'd already have the truth.
"We let our "media" get away with far too much"
The media attack politicians who don't have anti-libel protections anyway. Your argument is moot.
They're also not obliged to 'report the other side', which my proposed IBOR mandates.
Essentially, it breaks down internet into one of two forms:
Regulated speech (censorship, moderation etc) where usual penalities (EG libel, slander, etc) apply, and
Unregulated speech where equality of access/speech (IE the freedom to refute your oppositional counterpart if so necessary).
IE: to be immune from libel, I'd have to host rebuttals you make to my remarks.
"The principles under which we ought to jointly live are actually long-established and, for the most part, functional."
Actually, no they aren't.
Censorship on youtube, facebook, twitter et alia whilst youtube enjoys immunity for being responsible for the content it hosts.
Media attacks with no right of reply.
SLAPP lawsuits used to silence activists and reporters of the truth.
Shadowbans and to top it all off, after censoring what you say they still want to spy on what you do.
So no, the system isn't functional.
It's why you're fucking here, after all.