A judge has blocked the Biden administration and other federal officials from communicating with social media companies in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the country…

  • HelixDab@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well… Yes, it probably is. Because it’s political speech, and because there’s not a direct link to fraud or causal harm. See US v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. When Trump says that he’s a stable genius, that’s protected speech even though 180 degrees opposed to the truth.

    You’ll notice that e.g. what Trump’s attorneys said in public was very, very different from what they said to courts; it’s a criminal offense to lie to courts, but it’s largely legal and protected to lie to the public for political ends.

    • SophismaCognoscente@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate that I agree with this. On the one hand, “lying about a pandemic during a pandemic” sure sounds a lot like “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” but things like the lab leak theory aren’t really a matter of public health. While there are times when the government can and should fight dangerous misinformation, this is the kind of executive power that needs to be kept in check by the courts for the executive’s own good.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Calling disinformation about a global pandemic political speech sure is something.