Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by tekknik on Friday July 07, 2023 @08:53AM
(#36630957)
Your first two examples are fraud, not speech. Your third example is speech, but if you remove the mugger and have a friend say the same thing to you it becomes a joke.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by elishah on Friday July 07, 2023 @09:08PM
(#36640317)
The second example is fraud _and_ speech. The first one would be more like perjury, _and_ also speech.
That's the whole point: fraud, perjury, and several other harmful things are subcategories of speech.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that those things are legal. Just giving a few examples of speech that is harmful, rather than merely distasteful.
> The government would not have to intervene asking for censorship in any of these cases.
Hm, I think that may be pinning quite a lot on some questionable definition of "censorship."
In these examples the law would be banning some specific speech from me, Pfizer, and the mugger, and punishing us if we engaged in that banned speech anyway. Isn't that what censorship is?