[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.