It isn’t so much legislation as it is the interpretation of the First

Freedom necessarily requires responsibility, to not interfere with the freedoms of others… we are fee to operate motor vehicles and firearms, but we are responsible for any harm that is caused, whether intentional or not

There is no reason that the same metric for harm caused should not be applied to speech as it is to actions

It is near impossible to prove malice, and malice need not be proven when harm is caused by actions, or inactions, but speech may cause harm and be absolutely protected

I don’t believe the Framers of the Constitution envisioned protecting lies, and courts have at times agreed

Protecting the right to speak the truth is entirely valid, but protecting the right to lie is not, particularly if one takes the position of being a Christian nation

If speech causes harm, the speaker should not have absolute immunity, and any specific case should be decided on that basis