'Information' is the main trade at this moment. With all its good and bad.
I think it is a good thing that companies that are main traders of information, like Facebook, are regulated in some way, for all they care about is making money. a very narrow perspective.
Some people are robbing banks for that same stimulans.
Only the government - being the representative body of the people as a nation, has a broader perspective that represents the well-being of the nation as a whole.
They can choose to regulate some of the not wanted side effects, as they choose to do with robbing banks.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with controling the spreading of 'alternative facts' also known as plain lies, that a lot people accept as true.
As in all these cases it is the weakness and strength of the democracy of that nation that will control this process to find a balance.
Any law that restricts speech will be struct down by the Supreme Court, as has been done in the past, with the exception of speech that can cause an immediate harm to a person's body, like causing a panic by yelling fire. This is especially the case if the statements are a parody and not easily believed like Rob's example of a HRC running a child porn ring.
"Deliberate misstatements of fact were at issue in
Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988). Hustler magazine had stated that a prominent fundamentalist minister, Jerry Falwell, had drunken sex with his mother in an outhouse. Although the Court noted that "false statements of fact are particularly valueless," it drew a distinction between false statements not meant or likely to be believed by readers and other false statements of fact. The Court held that First Amendment prohibited awarding damages for false statements about public figures that cannot reasonably be believed. Satire and parody often involve false statements, and so long as persons would not take the statements to be true, they cannot be the basis for a tort action."
Now of course it have always been the case the one can sue over false allegations that are believable, and the court has up held this. The only change that I could see actually happening would be the court revisiting New York Times v Sullivan, which Clarence Thomas has been hinting about wanting to revisit. This case essential separates public figures from private figures when it comes to whether to not one can sue for libel. With private persons, one just needs to prove that damage was caused by a false statement. With public figure, one must also prove malice, which is very difficult.
Considering both Thomas's and the Cavanaugh's history (who's accusers childhood friend and main witness has recently come forward stating that not only did she find the story not credible in the least, but was threatened by associates with character assignation if she did not comply), I would not be surprised if this picked up steam.
