[Cookingboy]

>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.

[shlant]

> 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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

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).

[Cookingboy]

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:

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...

[jkaplowitz]

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.

That’s the scenario which started this subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42430717

[NavinF]

Why did you cite a case that was overturned by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The new ruling makes it clear that misinformation is legal under 1A

[shlant]

no the new ruling limited the scope of what is illegal. Inciting violence is not protected. Neither is defamation, fraud, or false advertising.

[ltbarcly3]

There are several studies thwt strongly imply TikTok pushes an agenda.

[Cthulhu_]

Which ones? Can you link some or provide the right search queries to find these?

Without substantiating your claim with links / references, this is an empty "appeal to authority" argument, aka weasel words.

[jkaplowitz]

> 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.

[Cookingboy]

>even though more targeted bans have been upheld as passing the relevant judicial tests for laws affecting First Amendment rights.

Such as?

[jkaplowitz]

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.