It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.

I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law.

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]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

> I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning.

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.

By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.

So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel? Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0]

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

> So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. [...] Or slander? Libel?

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.

If your speech negatively impacts another citizen, and your speech turned out to be all lies, you are absolutely liable for the consequences of it. The "government" is simply here to handle the arbitration.

Only under very specific and difficult-to-prove circumstances. These exceptions to freedom of speech are very narrowly carved out, and for good reason. The broader the exception, the easier it is to instrumentalize for political repression - and there will be a huge desire to do so.