>Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal.
First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical.
Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
> Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
Again, does NOBODY know what the first amendment covers???
If you yell FIRE in a crowded theatre (misinformation) that is not covered by the 1st amendment[1]. Please stop talking confidently about something you don't understand.
Edit:
Schenck v. United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio but not completely, only limiting the scope. There are also many other examples that could be used to show that spreading misinformation is not blanket covered by 1a (defamation for example).
If you do understand First Amendment then you should also understand that foreign propaganda is protected speech, and is not treated as yelling fire in a crowded theater:
Correct, the mere act of spreading foreign propaganda, without more, is not illegal.
But spreading foreign propaganda is indeed illegal despite that precedent if one does it as an agent of a foreign government within the FARA legal definition (which is reasonably implied by being on their payroll) and does not register with the US government as a foreign agent, aside from certain exceptions.
>There are a bunch and they are very easy to find.
Really? Because the U.S. government, in their own court filing, have openly admitted that there is no evidence of TikTok's wrong doing in terms of manipulating information.
I don't think it gets much more authoritative than U.S. government's own court filing.
The link you provided has been debunked over and over again. It was a paid-for study aimed to generate certain conclusion.
And its methodology is silly at best, insane at worst (uses U.S. social media company as a control group for neutrality on China lmao).
> Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
Not accurate, no, assuming that by misinformation you mean information that the author knows to be false. To name just two quite legally clear examples with no inherent connection to foreign states, US defamation law and US product liability law often create civil liability and occasionally even criminal liability for certain categories of knowingly false statements.
But, sure, spreading misinformation is not always illegal, and a blanket ban on that would indeed violate the First Amendment even though more targeted bans have been upheld as passing the relevant judicial tests for laws affecting First Amendment rights.
Such as the two examples I gave in the comment you're quoting: US defamation law and US product liability law.
To be more concrete about the defamation example:
Imagine someone has a grudge against you for some reason that doesn't involve any history of illegal behavior, like maybe your business won a lucrative contract that they wanted for their business. Motivated by a desire to hurt your personal reputation and cause you social ostracism, they tell all your friends and neighbors that you're a convicted murderer, when they know you've never even been accused of any kind of wrongdoing in any court whatsoever.
To the best of my knowledge, this is illegal defamation in every US state, and it's criminal in some of them. Although it's rarely prosecuted as a crime, criminal defamation laws have been upheld as constitutional in certain situations including ones that would cover this scenario (if the available evidence meets the criminal standard of proof in court). Civil defamation lawsuits are commonly enough made across the US, and under scenarios like this one, are also commonly enough won (or settled between the parties).
To be more concrete about the product liability example:
Imagine that you are a business selling a product and you write "safe for all ages" on the box, when you know it has components that are small enough for young children to choke on, but you lie about it on the packaging because your product really appeals to young children and you don't want to lose out on the profits from selling to their parents. If a 2-year-old then proceeds to choke on one of the components in the box, yes indeed there are lots of courts across the US that would award damages to the affected family, and maybe some courts that would find criminal liability as well although I'm less sure of that question.
>It is illegal if it is paid for foreign state and undeclared.
Good. Because ByteDance has never tried to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company. So that argument wouldn't matter even if there are evidence of them pushing Chinese propaganda.
I think the point isn't that they're trying to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company, but that they control the algorithms that can be used to push undeclared foreign state-sponsored content.
Holy shit can you people stop with "every point that disagrees with me is a russian propaganda point" are you serious? Can you not conceive of anyone disagreeing with you in good faith without being a state actor? You're literally just declaring a specific kind of speech "not free speech" as if it's a fact and not your arbitrary opinion
Instead of attacking the poster with an ad hominem / character assassination, why not provide a counterpoint to their arguments, or ask them why they think it's Russian propaganda (burden of proof is with them after all)?
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me, but I was very clear about the point, it wasn't "every point that disagrees with me".
Unless you don't think it's relevant to point out that a specific recurring point promoted by and paid for by Russian State media, under the disguise of "conservative free speech"?[0]
Right, i don't think that's relevant. You see how "bad person has that opinion therefore the opinion is invalid" doesn't lead to any kind of productive conversation right?
I think it's relevant, and that's why I commented to shed some light on it.
I never accused anyone of being good or bad, I can't know that.
But what I do know is that this angle is used quite often by the same people who push Russian propaganda, like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson.
How would you approach someone who has been misinformed into believing free speech protects foreign state interference and that's ok, for example?
Look in the mirror, you're the one convinced everyone disagreeing with you is a threat to the empire. Don't worry buddy, the CIA has plenty of propagandists you don't need to carry water for them
> Do they pay you to rabidly shill or are you just that far gone?
I am slightly on the side of the OP who originally made the claim but nobody should take anyone who throw's around the "paid shill" line seriously. You really are just labelling people you disagree with. Grow up.
This is a very common McCarthyite propaganda point, and I think it's important that we deconstruct it.
We presumably live in a Democracy but this democracies voters cannot be trusted to read, view or engage with content that might undercut the preferred narratives of the mother country. Therefore, anyone arguing for this right must be under the communist spell or worse on the payroll.
In Democracies, there are laws in place to protect voters.
Here's very simple example to help you understand this: if you have someone on a foreign state payroll, they have to disclose they're being paid for by a foreign state, and people have the right to know that.[0]
You have the example of Tenet Media being paid by Russia Today to hire American right-wing influencers to promote Russian talking points, covertly - that's illegal.[0]
It just looks like people have a fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic concept about what Free Speech is.
Free Speech isn't the freedom to dupe voters, because voters may have the capacity to discern misinformation from information. Even if you go by your caustic remark, yes, a lot of voters can't discern misinformation. That's why there are laws in place.
