4 ms·

The right to free speech is not absolute (for one example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawl

by Rury 4y ago

The right to free speech is not absolute (for one example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action). I mean the government has every right to arrest and reprimand you if you happen to yell "I have a bomb!" in a crowded airport. So in similar regards, doing this wouldn't necessarily crush free speech as it currently stands. As for being hoodwinked, then still hold them to a fault. Some people might find that unjust, but again, it would force people to try to think, behave, and act more responsibly (or else face repercussions). Otherwise, people could always just play the naivety card, akin to "I didn't know the law, so I shouldn't be penalized for breaking it". Arguably, if you enable such, then society can become a race to the bottom in zero accountability and all that comes with it. Hence why some people think that a part of being a responsible adult, means owning up to your mistakes, even if you didn't know any better.

smitty1e 4y ago
In the context of advertising speech, the non-absolute point seems moot. How would one boost business by sowing chaos? Actors tend to have agents for the very due diligence reason under discussion. Hammer the agents for professional malpractice if the agents don't suss out the scam.
- Rury 4y ago
  Well in the context of advertising, the matter is not so much about boosting business by sowing chaos, but more of a matter of whether does free speech allow you to promote fraud. It has already been deemed that fraud is not necessarily protected by the first amendment, so what I'm saying is: if we reiterate that, it doesn't exactly "crush" free speech as it currently stands. But whether that's actually the case here (celebs involved in fraud), I agree is moot. Let me also add that, holding someone to a fault doesn't necessarily mean to the same degree. Innocence isn't necessarily a black and white matter, and you can always adjust the punishment to fit the crime. Anyhow, certainly the most innocent people here, are taxpayers not whatsoever involved in the matter, especially those who have been exclaiming about the dangers of crypto for reasons such as this. They should not be the ones forced to pay.

by Rury 4y ago

smitty1e 4y ago

In the context of advertising speech, the non-absolute point seems moot. How would one boost business by sowing chaos? Actors tend to have agents for the very due diligence reason under discussion. Hammer the agents for professional malpractice if the agents don't suss out the scam.

Rury 4y ago
Well in the context of advertising, the matter is not so much about boosting business by sowing chaos, but more of a matter of whether does free speech allow you to promote fraud. It has already been deemed that fraud is not necessarily protected by the first amendment, so what I'm saying is: if we reiterate that, it doesn't exactly "crush" free speech as it currently stands. But whether that's actually the case here (celebs involved in fraud), I agree is moot. Let me also add that, holding someone to a fault doesn't necessarily mean to the same degree. Innocence isn't necessarily a black and white matter, and you can always adjust the punishment to fit the crime. Anyhow, certainly the most innocent people here, are taxpayers not whatsoever involved in the matter, especially those who have been exclaiming about the dangers of crypto for reasons such as this. They should not be the ones forced to pay.