- "it seems intent on causing material harm" It's intent on changing public policy by persuading voters with argumentation. This is the most protected class of

- "it seems intent on causing material harm" It's intent on changing public policy by persuading voters with argumentation. This is the most protected class of speech. That it publishes ugly true facts about individuals (which is also protected!) is an incidental step towards the author trying to paint a persuasive political narrative. (I can't help but want to break this down. You say it's misleading, but the case docket is hyperlinked inline with the text you say is misleading—that's far more than adequate in US jurisprudence. No "reasonable person" (a technical standard) is misled on a fact that's plainly disclosed, just one click away. You say the criminality is in the "distant past"—but the person's felon status is current, ongoing, and in fact relevant to the author's line of arguing, which is that these nonprofits are a form of "laundering" federal government grants to people the federal government otherwise disqualifies. You think (and I'm sympathetic to this) that crimes committed 20+ years ago are not strongly reflective of the current human. But, this is a subjective interpretation—not an objective truth beyond reasonable debate; and the fact that the US government itself disagrees, by permanently disqualifying felons shows how ludicrous it'd be to argue, in a US court, that "he's a convicted felon" is speech without social value).