does Internet free speech require a minimum amount of critical evaluation to work properly?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-17/india-bans-bulk-texts-in-attempt-to-stanch-fear-migrant-exodus

"The government banned bulk phone messaging for 15 days, Home Secretary R.K. Singh told reporters in New Delhi yesterday. Ninong Ering, a ruling Congress party lawmaker from the state of Arunachal Pradesh, said in parliament yesterday that about 20,000 people had fled cities including Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune, and demanded action against those spreading rumors."

So maybe this was something that was taken for granted. One thing I noticed about Anonymous is that they critically evaluated most everything, and even tended toward "that's bullshit" even before evaluating things.  But perhaps there are some societies or cultures where critical thinking is not ingrained enough to reject common rumors online.  Just because someone says something on the Internet, it shouldn't be taken as truth immediately, just the same as in real life.  It seems to be a common problem among human beings.  Even on www.4chan.org's /b/ channel, this warning is needed; "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."