>We get disinterested social networks allowing fake news that cause direct harm, created by anonymous users who they don't want to reveal. You should probably

>We get disinterested social networks allowing fake news that cause direct harm, created by anonymous users who they don't want to reveal. You should probably look at the historical cases about harm and speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States >The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The statute only applied to successful obstructions of the draft, but common-law precedents allowed prosecution for attempts that were dangerously close to success. Attempts made by speech or writing could be punished like other attempted crimes; the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction, because, "when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."[7] In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime allow greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime, if only because new and greater dangers are present. Reminder that the US has been at war since 2001. The harm caused by whoever is the perpetrator of the moral panic of the moment always pales in comparison to the harm caused by the response to it. Let a thousand Russian bots post on facebook, it will cause less damage to society than a single deleted post.