3 ms·

Is disingenuous communication protected by freedom speech? If I am allowed to say X, can I also pretend to be person Y and say as X as Y? Can I pretend to be pe

Is disingenuous communication protected by freedom speech? If I am allowed to say X, can I also pretend to be person Y and say as X as Y? Can I pretend to be person Y_0 ... Y_N-1 and still say X for any arbitrarily large value of N? disingenuous - Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. [0] [0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous

spuz 8y ago
Depends which country you live in.
lbotos 8y ago
I believe "no" if "disingenuous" is a synonym for false I think it'd be like "yelling fire in a crowded theater": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... IANAL
- gowld 8y ago
  Your link says "yes". > limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
- rayiner 8y ago
  "Fire in a crowded theater" is probably the wrong example. (In part because it was used to justify restrictions on political speech that would not fly today.) A better example is: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ > Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). Freedom of speech in the U.S. is extremely broad. False and damaging speech is in theory not protected (so defamation laws are valid), but the standard is very high even then. "Disingenuous" speech is protected (OP is calling it "disingenuous" because he can't prove it's clearly false.)
  - tareqak 8y ago
    I used the phrase "disingenuous communication" not "disingenuous speech". The part that is misleading is a person using a bot that pretends to be another person (real or imaginary) to make a claim. The veracity of the claim doesn't really matter so much as the claims ability to stoke emotion. The part I find disingenuous (insincere) is pretending to be a human being and using other people's naïve assumption that the act is real to influence current events.
mc32 8y ago
Well, I don't think that's actually the question nor the solution. The solution might lie in treating new and low activity accounts differently. Of course, this does not prevent "sleeper" accounts which act one way and then "turncoat" --however this method requires too much pre-planning and engagement (thus relatively costly) for it to be viable, I think. In most non-official speech (under oath, perjury, etc.) you are not required to be truthful. I.e, I don't have to be truthful with directions when a stranger asks me, nor you give me the right time when I ask you for it.
- tareqak 8y ago
  One of the reasons I asked this question is that I think we need to re-ask and re-answer the question of what makes communication spam? The severity of the answer would inform the means by which people would deal with it and the urgency of doing so.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Things get too complicated. Is teenage babbling "spam"? Unwanted marketing? People showing off? Or being silly. As for deception or less than honest speech, that may be even trickier since many things are multifaceted and can have different "truths" depending on perspective. I don't think it's a viable approach.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If I am allowed to say X, can I also pretend to be Y and say as X as Y? If “Y” is a person, that's false impersonation if it is done to cause harm to Y or benefit you. If “Y” is an adjective, and it's done to induce other people to take detrimental action that they otherwise would not, it's fraud.
- tareqak 8y ago
  Good catch! I meant Y as type of person. I'll update my post. Thanks again 'dragonwriter.
hinkley 8y ago
There's all sorts of things you can say as long as it's your opinion. Once you start trying to get other people to do things, there are big areas that are off limits. We have laws about public safety, inciting crimes, fitness for purpose ("drink this battery acid, it cures gout!"), fraud, libel, and slander.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Problem is, there's no hard line. One could reasonably argue that expressing your opinion to a sufficiently large number of people translates to measurable influence on their behavior. Hell, depending on the nature of the relationship, expressing your opinion to one person can translate to them changing behavior.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Sure, you could argue that. And you would be wrong. At least in the United States, political expression is extremely protected. I can think of nothing more important for free speech to protect than political speech.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stale2002 8y ago
Yes it is free speech. I don't see anything wrong with people making political arguements.

spuz 8y ago

Depends which country you live in.

lbotos 8y ago

I believe "no" if "disingenuous" is a synonym for false I think it'd be like "yelling fire in a crowded theater": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... IANAL

gowld 8y ago
Your link says "yes". > limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
rayiner 8y ago
"Fire in a crowded theater" is probably the wrong example. (In part because it was used to justify restrictions on political speech that would not fly today.) A better example is: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ > Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). Freedom of speech in the U.S. is extremely broad. False and damaging speech is in theory not protected (so defamation laws are valid), but the standard is very high even then. "Disingenuous" speech is protected (OP is calling it "disingenuous" because he can't prove it's clearly false.)
- tareqak 8y ago
  I used the phrase "disingenuous communication" not "disingenuous speech". The part that is misleading is a person using a bot that pretends to be another person (real or imaginary) to make a claim. The veracity of the claim doesn't really matter so much as the claims ability to stoke emotion. The part I find disingenuous (insincere) is pretending to be a human being and using other people's naïve assumption that the act is real to influence current events.

mc32 8y ago

Well, I don't think that's actually the question nor the solution. The solution might lie in treating new and low activity accounts differently. Of course, this does not prevent "sleeper" accounts which act one way and then "turncoat" --however this method requires too much pre-planning and engagement (thus relatively costly) for it to be viable, I think. In most non-official speech (under oath, perjury, etc.) you are not required to be truthful. I.e, I don't have to be truthful with directions when a stranger asks me, nor you give me the right time when I ask you for it.

tareqak 8y ago
One of the reasons I asked this question is that I think we need to re-ask and re-answer the question of what makes communication spam? The severity of the answer would inform the means by which people would deal with it and the urgency of doing so.
- mc32 8y ago
  Things get too complicated. Is teenage babbling "spam"? Unwanted marketing? People showing off? Or being silly. As for deception or less than honest speech, that may be even trickier since many things are multifaceted and can have different "truths" depending on perspective. I don't think it's a viable approach.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If I am allowed to say X, can I also pretend to be Y and say as X as Y? If “Y” is a person, that's false impersonation if it is done to cause harm to Y or benefit you. If “Y” is an adjective, and it's done to induce other people to take detrimental action that they otherwise would not, it's fraud.

tareqak 8y ago
Good catch! I meant Y as type of person. I'll update my post. Thanks again 'dragonwriter.

hinkley 8y ago

There's all sorts of things you can say as long as it's your opinion. Once you start trying to get other people to do things, there are big areas that are off limits. We have laws about public safety, inciting crimes, fitness for purpose ("drink this battery acid, it cures gout!"), fraud, libel, and slander.

int_19h 8y ago
Problem is, there's no hard line. One could reasonably argue that expressing your opinion to a sufficiently large number of people translates to measurable influence on their behavior. Hell, depending on the nature of the relationship, expressing your opinion to one person can translate to them changing behavior.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Sure, you could argue that. And you would be wrong. At least in the United States, political expression is extremely protected. I can think of nothing more important for free speech to protect than political speech.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stale2002 8y ago

Yes it is free speech. I don't see anything wrong with people making political arguements.