I believe that child pornography should be legal to possess and distribute, however not legal to produce as production inherently involves child molestation which is what should be illegal. Subliminal broadcasts which attempt to secretly alter the listen/viewers thoughts on a subconscious level should also be legal, if you make that illegal you will essentially outlaw marketing and advertising. Public hate speech should be allowed on land that it is allowed on, I do not believe in the concept of public land and thus it is a non-issue, the rules regarding hate speech are determined by the owner of the land you are on. So I believe that I am more in favor of freedom of speech than you are. Indeed I even think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded room, so long as the owner of the crowded room has not set any rule against it. People will avoid crowded rooms in which it is not against the rules to yell fire, and thus the problem is self correcting without the need to violate peoples right to freedom of speech and property. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you are free to say anything you want where and whenever you want, but it does mean that you are free to say anything you want on private land that has no rule against saying anything you want. Well the government is currently doing all of these things that you are afraid of. Also I do not think that there should be a government. If some group of people wants to spread propaganda and lies, they should not be restricted from doing these things. Trust is quite important in a libertarian society, it is the most valuable asset there is. If a group is identified spreading propaganda, people will start to discredit them. The groups that consistently tell the truth will be the groups that are believed. I do not think there should be any law that says people can not for example put on television an ad that says smoking marijuana will make you want to rape white women. However, there should also be no laws against others putting an ad out that says that smoking marijuana is relatively harmless. The masses will come to recognize who tells lies in time, especially when scientific minded organizations come together that are interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Currently such organizations are restricted by the government, they are not allowed to carry out research on recreational drugs, they are denied government grants if they cast drugs in anything other than a negative light, and they are manipulated by a coercive organization. In a libertarian society these issues will be gone or less severe, there will not be government grants to be denied to researchers, there will not be governments to make laws against certain types of study. Intelligent people will have less trouble to recognize the truth, and the people who speak the truth will come to be respected by the masses and the liars will be seen for what they are. Already in the world of today there is an insane amount of information warfare, but due to governments there is no level playing field and so they are winning at indoctrinating people to their agenda. However, I do think it is fraud for a cigarette company to advertise that smoking their cigarettes is not only healthy , but reduces your chances of dying of cancer (unless they can prove this to be the case). Just as I think it should be illegal for a person to sell cyanide tablets as candy. The issue in these cases is not one of freedom of speech but rather one of fraud. I can say that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer and I am a liar but not a criminal, and it is my right to be a liar. But if I say smoking my cigarettes doesn't cause cancer then I have committed fraud and initiated force against others by deceiving them. Additionally, there will be trusted organizations of scientists that will confirm to the masses that smoking cigarettes does indeed cause cancer. And these scientists will not be paid by the government, but rather they will be funded voluntarily by the people who they supply information to. It will be in their best interests to supply correct information to people, because information will become part of a market, and those who give false information will lose their funding. People who give false information will not be funded by governments, as governments will be wiped out , as one of governments typical characteristics is that they are funded by taxation and as taxation is theft it will be forcibly halted by the militant libertarians. Now the cigarette industry may pay propagandists to advertise that cigarettes in general do not cause cancer (people can be paid to lie), but they cannot pay them to say that their specific brand of cigarette does not cause cancer (people cannot be paid to commit fraud). I have faith that the scientific community will be much larger than and able to overcome a few propagandists, even if the propagandists manage to get some people with degrees working for them. One example I can point to today is the scientific debate regarding climate change, of course there are a few scientists who have refuted climate change in its entirety, and they are often accused of being in the pocket of big industry. However, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community claims that climate change is really happening. Conversely we have the war on drugs propagandists who appear to outnumber the scientists interested in facts, but this is a different struggle than that of science versus the desires of corporations, this is the struggle of fact versus the interests of the government. And as already stated, in a libertarian society the government will be outlawed and thus they will have no way to use coercion to manipulate the information presented to society as truth.