Freedom of speech is freedom from dumb laws that violate the Constitution. It's literally what the text says.

As 1st amendment absolutist as one can be, I don't think "manipulating people" is something that should be protected under free speech. idk, is that a hot take?

/music co-host | Music DAO founder everwave.xyz | ex telco.in founder | writing on web3 & culture https://paragraph.xyz/@alixkun.eth

1. How do you define manipulating people? Who is the expert to decide what is correct.

2. We have clear case law and tests for the exceptions. So you're proposing we update those. That requires a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely. Or SCOTUS to throw out a bunch of 1st Amendment case law.

> Manipulating people in my book is lying to them to achieve an expected result. Maybe deceiving is a better word if you will.

But who decides if it was a lie? Are proposing a taking anyone to court for saying something that's later found to be a lie? 

And again, there's already a Supreme Court defined test for what "false" information is not protected by free speech. The bar is *really high*, especially with regard to public officials and people of public interest.

So outside of a Constitution amendment or Supreme Court changing tack, any attempt at passing a law to circumvent is illegal. 

It's how our system works.

1/ Reality? 🤷‍♂️ 
Manipulating people in my book is lying to them to achieve an expected result. Maybe deceiving is a better word if you will.

2/No comment about that part. I'm not a constitutionalist, so I wouldn't dare elaborate on what that could look like.