> They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First A

> They also don’t have evidence that anything was illegal, since preventing misinformation & speculation isn’t illegal and might not be protected by the First Amendment. IANAL (and I'm sure you aren't either), but if you actually read the wikipedia article you linked to, that specific area of constitutional law is vague and far from settled: > The basis for this ruling was the Court's fear that "a rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions" would lead to "self-censorship".[15] This determination altered the theory of the 'false statements' free speech exception. Even if a false statement generally would be harmful for public discourse, the Court quoted John Stuart Mill in arguing a false statement in this context would bring "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error".[16] > Issues "of public concern" The leading case on what an issue "of public concern" is Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985). In Dun & Bradstreet, the Supreme Court considered whether a credit reporting service which distributed fliers to their only five subscribers qualified as an action of "public concern". As it was "hardly and unlikely to be deterred by incidental state regulation", the Court concluded it did not qualify.[5] This decision did not provide strong guidance on the issue.[20] This vague area of law in regards to false statements of fact can lead to a variety of arguments over what is relevant or has public importance.[20][21] (emphasis is mine^) Anyway, I'm not arguing it was or was not illegal, since that is a matter for the courts to decide. You could be right, but I'm skeptical