I can entirely concede the case for secrecy in these situations. Obviously, my statement is not a full proposal for a specific law, but rather a starting point

I can entirely concede the case for secrecy in these situations. Obviously, my statement is not a full proposal for a specific law, but rather a starting point. There is certainly a level of nuance (as there is with all laws), but, I think it comes down to the difference between publishing content you know to be false for matters of personal gain, manipulation, malice, etc. To be a practical law it would need some sort of clause akin to separate the 'actus rea' from the 'mens rea' as well as the impact. Consider cases in libel. The 'actus rea' (the actual act of committing libel) and saying something defamatory about someone that you believe to be true, is different than the libel which has the 'mens rea' (forethought of the action) in which you made claims you knew to be false but did so for a negative impact against someone else. The 'actus rea' alone is often swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist, unless the plaintiff proves substantial damages from the act itself. That qualifier can make it a criminal act even without the 'mens rea'. I agree, there is a lot of nuance to tease out in such a legal concept. My retort to the other commentator was more that if you are going to say something is a bad idea, you have to put forth why and not just put forth rhetoric! But, once again, I wholeheartedly agree with your examples. I couldn't call for a law that compels the truth. Just something that prevents false publication with the intent to deceive people that it is real for the purposes of malice or ill-gotten self-gain.