Should disinformation be protected by the 1st Amendment?

[_lost_username_]

Alright wannabe policy makers and constitutional experts, lets see you flex.

Misinformation - Incorrect or misleading information. aka, mistakenly saying something you misheard or non-bad intentioned wrong belief.

Disinformation -  misleading content deliberately spread to deceive people, or to secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.

This is about Disinformation NOT Misinformation, so understanding the difference is key.

The current supreme court holds that disinformation is covered by the first amendment. 

The question is: Should it be? Please explain your answer. Both legal and moral arguments are acceptable. 

If you don't think disinformation is protected, say how you what should of laws should be in place against it, how they should be enforced and what punishments are appropriate.

Have fun!

[André Toulon]

Hard for me to have a moral opinion on shit when it legally is a certain way. I dont really do wishful thinking.... but my answer would be since hate speech is unless it leads to violence or some shit, then Disinformation should share that same liberty..... why tf not... it's going to be arbitrarily enforced anyway.

I know its probably not what you wanted in an answer but the whole "do you think this law is just" barometer has been broken for me for a while..

 

Edited Thursday at 04:15 AM by André Toulon

[Insipid]

6 hours ago, _lost_username_ said:

Alright wannabe policy makers and constitutional experts, lets see you flex.

 

What an insufferable display of pseudo-intellect, or perhaps I should say psychological projection. Bitching about an administration is not the same thing as wanting to be a politician.

Don't get me started on why you changed your SN, which is very relevant to the topic on hand. In the current shitty days of Trump, one should shoot the messenger, especially if he is a hypocrite.

Edited Thursday at 02:24 AM by Insipid

[[classic swim]]

[naraku360]

1 hour ago, Insipid said:

Don't get me started on why you changed your SN, which is very relevant to the topic on hand.

Get started!

[_lost_username_]

Quote

I dont really do wishful thinking....

To be fair, doesn't pretty much everything we have today start as wishful thinking? Trumpism started as wishful thinking with the far right decades before it manifested. The Great Society -- pretty much the same story but an earlier time frame. The Civil Rights movement was wishful thinking centuries before it happened. Putting a person on the moon just a fantasy for thousands of years. You never know what little bit of wishful thinking can turn into "something." Of course, that something may not manifest for a few hundred years but you can still put it out there and it makes it down the chain even though nobody will ever have an idea it came from you. We have no idea where the idea that "genocide is wrong" and "women are people too" came from, probably just some forgotten person mentioning it one day around someone that heard and told someone else and so on until it was eventually written and then eventually accepted and then eventually acted upon ... kind of like the chaos theory of a butterfly flapping its wings. 

Where is fucking Gaius? He'd be a novel into this right now arguing from whatever wing he decided to be at that point. 

[André Toulon]

I didnt mean to imply wishful thinking is bad, but I'm an S tier cynic, so o6t just doesn't work for me....anyone else that gets their ideologies to shift into the realm of praxis, more power to them....but i just dont see me doing it.

[1pooh4u]

On 4/9/2025 at 10:23 PM, Insipid said:

What an insufferable display of pseudo-intellect, or perhaps I should say psychological projection. Bitching about an administration is not the same thing as wanting to be a politician.

Don't get me started on why you changed your SN, which is very relevant to the topic on hand. In the current shitty days of Trump, one should shoot the messenger, especially if he is a hypocrite.

Is this Gemini or Icarus? Or someone else altogether? 

[Insipid]

 

12 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is this Gemini or Icarus? Or someone else altogether? 

ZoomBubba

[1pooh4u]

36 minutes ago, Insipid said:

 

ZoomBubba

Thanks I was way off but tbf I couldn’t remember their name originally and didn’t feel like saying “or that libertarian guy” 🫠

Gem shouldn’t have been in the mix. I should have known better. The post was too smart for them 😆

[discolé monade]

no

because

[Raptorpat]

I'm just sitting here and thinking to myself, not sure how you would draw anything but a fairly conservative line on how to legally distinguish it. To the extend that it's a "I know it when I see it" that entails a lot of subjectivity, I feel like the only reasonable line is probably similar to defamation where you have to litigate the absolute truth and the intended harm etc. which is a high bar and an even higher bar when you're talking about the enhanced speech rights that media and politicians have (in the context of defamation).

[SwimOdin]

According to Brandenburg vs Ohio, it’s fine as long as the speech isn’t “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

So yes it is but it isn’t, because we can’t decide the legal definition of “facilitate” let alone anything else.

[molarbear]

13 hours ago, Insipid said:

 

ZoomBubba

Dafuq??

I have been on this boards for longer than I care to admit

yet, somehow you people still manage pull in peeps from the past I have never heard of?

 

Is it really too much to ask that Marren Morris secretly scroll these boards and be revealed?

[naraku360]

19 hours ago, molarbear said:

Dafuq??

I have been on this boards for longer than I care to admit

yet, somehow you people still manage pull in peeps from the past I have never heard of?

 

Is it really too much to ask that Marren Morris secretly scroll these boards and be revealed?

I believe ZoomBubba was Sandstone.

[Insipid]

On 4/11/2025 at 11:35 AM, 1pooh4u said:

Thanks I was way off but tbf I couldn’t remember their name originally and didn’t feel like saying “or that libertarian guy” 🫠

Gem shouldn’t have been in the mix. I should have known better. The post was too smart for them 😆

I feel somewhat bad for Gem. The highlight of his life is being cucked by an ogre, and now all that's left is being a middle aged catfishing creep we millennials were warned about during the days of AIM.

I'm exercising my freedom of speech, and it is not disinformation. I have no qualms being censored for this post, however. 💩

[1pooh4u]

You’re such a scamp! 😆

[molarbear]

4 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I believe ZoomBubba was Sandstone.

ahhhhhhhh

I stand by my old person rant,

you peeps change names way too much

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

6 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I believe ZoomBubba was Sandstone.

Are you sure? This seems so unlikely to me.

[scoobdog]

6 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I believe ZoomBubba was Sandstone.

He is not Sandstone.

[André Toulon]

24 minutes ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

Are you sure? This seems so unlikely to me.

Nah, not at all....Sandstone is quite distinct and obvious to me.  He will do a lot of things like create false narratives, go full non sequitur and spaz if someone challenges his point, or at worst use passive aggressive insults....but going stealth just doesn't seem sandstone to me.  Dude is....i won't say egotistical....but he definitely wants to be noticed.

Edited yesterday at 07:40 AM by André Toulon

[naraku360]

12 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

He is not Sandstone.

Wtf then who is ZoomBubba?

[naraku360]

35 minutes ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

Are you sure? This seems so unlikely to me.

 

10 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

Nah, not at all....Sandstone is quite distinct and obvious to me.  He will do a lot of things like create false narratives, go full non sequitur and spaz if someone challenges his point, or at worst use passive aggressive insults....but going stealth just doesn't seem sandstone to me.  Dude is....i won't say egotistical....but he definitely wants to be noticed.

All I know is someone told me ZoomBubba and Sandstone were the same person, so I just went with it. I know very little about either, and less about OP.

[André Toulon]

100% sure that was a nabs thing. 

[naraku360]

27 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

100% sure that was a nabs thing. 

 

[scoobdog]

9 hours ago, André Toulon said:

Nah, not at all....Sandstone is quite distinct and obvious to me.  He will do a lot of things like create false narratives, go full non sequitur and spaz if someone challenges his point, or at worst use passive aggressive insults....but going stealth just doesn't seem sandstone to me.  Dude is....i won't say egotistical....but he definitely wants to be noticed.

The sure fire way of knowing it’s Sandstone is him extolling a full throated, almost pure, hatred for me.

[The Evil Dr. Longshadow]

If anybody spreads bullshit, it eventually gets found out in a free society.  That's the marketplace of ideas.  In places where the government controls the whole marketplace, it's too often that the bullshit prevails and the facts remain hidden.

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

19 hours ago, scoobdog said:

The sure fire way of knowing it’s Sandstone is him extolling a full throated, almost pure, hatred for me.

Then what's the difference between Sandstone and Nabs?