What? It absolutely is. A lie is covered under free speech. One can say anything under that doctrine.

Not without consequences.

As a recent example Alex Jones reversed his conspiracy theories on the threat of a lawsuit. Spreading misinformation comes with penalty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School...

The consequences of free speech is another beast altogether to be sure.

This is not true and does not cover fraud.

incorrect. you're conflating action with speech.

engaging in fraud is not speech. If I told you that I owned a hedge fund and would make you 10x returns, that's speech. If I take your money with the promise of 10x returns and enroll you in a scheme, that's an action.

>If I told you that I owned a hedge fund and would make you 10x returns, that's speech.

If I gave you money based on that speech it would be hard to argue in court that you didn't engage in fraud. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll agree with you.

the sentence immediately following the one you quoted asserts as much. are you agreeing or trying to make the same point with different words?

It's certainly possible to twist this situation around to where I don't give you money, like giving it to the guy right next to you.

The action there is separate from the speech. I imagine for these disinformation type campaigns, the action is voting

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

If I sell you a bar of lead painted gold, and tell you that it's solid gold, I can still be held responsible for fraud. My words would constitute a crime.

Now, if I told you explicitly that it was lead, but you decided to pay the gold price of your own free will, then I would be okay.

It would literally be the words I used to that constituted the crime. Lying isn't free speech in plenty on contexts. Go file a false police report and find out what happens.

It's still free speech. It just comes with consequences. The OP doesn't dispute that. Why is it that folks are so eager to run to this as if it were an argument, as if it somehow invalidates that speech is a freedom?

Misinformation is such an Orwellian term, considering most "facts" and "fact checking" are subjective unless it's hard numbers, but even using numbers and stats isn't enough anymore because even they must be interpreted within the context of contradictory concepts like a persons lived experience.

Not so muddy as that - the exact truth may be hard to pinpoint. But outright falsehoods are still pretty plain.

Or there’s cases like WMDs or “Assad gassed his own people” which are outright frauds coming from the establishment who determines what is factual.

Who gets to decide whether I'm being misinformed or not?

Should a private platform allow misinformation on his platform?

Yes, it is.