[tareqak]

I definitely see what you are saying, but I think it would be similar to the FCAP in terms of who would be affected. The accounting provision of the FCAP applies to companies that list securities in the US. Similarly, news organizations (radio, TV, newspapers) could be held accountable depending on how big their audience is estimated to be.

One way to look at it could be like "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", which is not protected speech [0]. What if a newspaper persuaded people to do just that, but it itself did not do that? Basically, how far can someone stretch the imminent part of "imminent lawless action" such that it does not fall afoul of the law, but becomes operationally reliable to achieve some goal [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[dragonwriter]

> One way to look at it could be like "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", which is not protected speech

Referring to Schenck v. US on the bounds of Constitutional free speech is like citing Plessy v. Ferguson on permissible racial segregation.

[tareqak]

I didn't mean to cause offense. If you could please show me where I went wrong here, then I'd appreciate it.

[humanrebar]

I'm saying anyone with a newsletter, blog, Twitter account, or Facebook feed is potentially "the press". As is any company that issues press releases, which is just about every company. To pick an example, President Trump reaches more people than your local paper. Do we think a Trump will have the same accountability in truthfulness?