[lurquer]

> It’s a rule against someone speaking something they know and believe a priori to be false with the intent to mislead people.

If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem?

If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy.

If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.

[Spivak]

It would be a problem! I don’t think people would care as much because it’s the same as stealing a balloon on free balloon day but you still have a guilty mind and had the intent to deceive people regardless of your success at it.

It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.