>In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source.
>When he made these statements, Musk knew that he had never discussed a going-private transaction at $420 per share with any potential funding source, had done nothing to investigate whether it would be possible for all current investors to remain with Tesla as a private company via a “special purpose fund,” and had not confirmed support of Tesla’s investors for a potential going-private transaction.
If the government were to try to impose restrictions on "untrue" speech in areas outside defamation, particularly in politics, I would view that as a major assault on the 1st Amendment.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences.
Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg is making a habit of such reporting.
Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you.
And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0]
humanrebar wrote that if it had hypothetically occurred in the US, it would "push against the First Amendment". You quoted that phrase and replied that it "isn't a freedom of speech issue", which I interpreted as disputing the claim that it would hypothetically push against the First Amendment. I replied in that context.
Whether it violates freedom of speech in a more abstract sense is, of course, subjective. I think that requiring the press to do some degree of due diligence is not unreasonable, but I also think there are advantages to the US's more deferential approach.
As for the Press Freedom Index, I'm under no illusion that the US is perfect in that regard.
Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.
In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation. Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a random site said" is not a defense. Case law obviously has plenty of precedent for consequences of free speech.
Yes the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this is where all the confusion starts. Everybody has their own definition of freedom of speech. Most are wrong or uninformed [1]. Given that even the Supreme Court has varying opinions on this from time to time just says it's not an easy topic. No, you don't have a blank cheque for saying anything you want without consequences. Speech is still very much regulated, written press and broadcasting are regulated (differently), etc. You have laws that criminalize slander, market manipulation, etc.
Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
As I said, the exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely narrowly carved out. What you're discussing is incitement to violence. There is a very high bar to prove incitement, libel or slander. It's almost impossible to libel a public figure, for example. Almost anything you could say about a politician is considered protected political speech.
> How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? [...] Obscenity?
These are restrictions that apply in very specific circumstances (e.g., representatives of public companies, television/radio hosts on certain regulated spectrum).
> Speech is still very much regulated
In extremely narrowly defined circumstances, which usually have a very high bar of proof. The general trend that I have observed since Trump's election, which I find very worrying, is for many American liberals to begin calling for greater regulation of speech. The 1st Amendment is incredibly expansive, which is one of the most appealing aspects of the American Constitution, in my opinion. In other countries (e.g., the UK and Germany), it is much easier for the government to regulate speech, which I don't think is healthy for democracy. It is easily for those in power to abuse such restrictions on speech.
I think the first word of the title, France, is a giveaway here.
The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.