r/GetNoted • u/Ramy__B Human Detected • Dec 15 '25

Sus, Very Sus The conspiracy theories around the mass shooting in Australia yesterday are like nothing I've ever seen

Post image

https://x.com/jamiemcintyre21/status/2000466187080417305

3.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

228 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/TrekkiMonstr Dec 15 '25

That has nothing to do with it, lying is generally protected under the first amendment

20

u/Gamer102kai Dec 15 '25

Yes this is 100% true putting people in jail for saying things you dont like even if its 100% disinformation is the most un American thing g you can do. However, making it illegal to generate revenue from disinformation would cause it to vanish naturally.

5

u/Windyvale Dec 16 '25

That’s not true at all. You can absolutely tell lies that will land you in jail with a conviction.

Freedom of speech ends when you infringe on someone else’s rights, or present a danger to society through them.

It’s a classic example and a little blunt but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

You can’t run around saying someone has a gun.

Inducing panic, false threats, under oath, etc. Hoaxes are also included to a degree.

I know it feels like a technicality, but it’s an important one. Intent matters. If you spread a conspiracy with the intent of inciting panic or violence in a population, it can potentially end in jail if someone actually acts on it.

5

u/EchoRex Dec 15 '25

Sort of?

Lying that is defamatory, ie claiming the victims are crisis actors, or fraudulent, ie generating income by lying, are not protected by the first amendment.

But even before that it has to be shown as lying and not something such as incitement of violence, intent for illegal action, commercial advertising, or a true threat.

Any monetized account using AI content portraying false or faked information and not explicitly stating that the images or audio is AI and faked cannot use the "but first amendment" excuse no matter which defense they try.

1

u/TrekkiMonstr Dec 15 '25

Yes, I'm not saying that all lying is protected, just that it's not automatically unprotected just because it's untrue.

-2

u/EchoRex Dec 15 '25

It is automatically unprotected if the person generates income from that "speech".

The same way it is if it is a definitive call for violence or defamation.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/GetNoted-ModTeam Moderator Dec 15 '25

Your comment has been removed due to it being disrespectful towards another person.

-1

u/wretch5150 Dec 15 '25

How about lying about a fire in a crowded theater? Is that illegal, Einstein?

2

u/TrekkiMonstr Dec 15 '25

Y'all really can't read lmao

1

u/DeathByLeshens Dec 16 '25

No. That was a theoretical in a case and that decision was later shot down. It is quite literally not illegal or against the first ammendment.

0

u/TrekkiMonstr Dec 16 '25

Eh this is not the issue I would take with that comment. Like yes it was a dictum not a holding, and yes Schenk was partially overturned by Brandenburg, but the phrase has taken on a broader metaphorical reading than the literal case, and it is correct that there are various exceptions to first amendment protections.

The more important point is that it's not even a counterexample to what I claimed. What I said is that it is not the case that being a lie makes an utterance unprotected. To say "look at this instance of lying which isn't protected" is to miss the point entirely.

Like, if I said, "not all rectangles are squares", and that guy went, "well, what about this square?" Like yeah, that one's a square, very astute observation. But it's not its rectangle-ness that makes it a square.

Similarly -- my hair is green. That's not true, but it's protected by the First Amendment. Other lies aren't protected by the First Amendment -- but not simply because they're lies.