[reillyse]

I hear what you are saying. I think this class of problem is one that the legal profession have solved mostly . Their solution is the "reasonable person" test. Would a mythical "reasonable person" believe what the person said.

Btw we aren't discussing what an unreasonable person might do with that information, just whether or not a reasonable person might believe what has been said or understand it a certain way.

We can definitely solve for the egregious cases though and we can solve those before getting too hung up on the tough ones in the middle.

And just to be clear. You are always permitted to say true things. It's only when you say false things that we need these curbs. What I'm really talking about is curbing "false speech".