Ask Slashdot: Is Deliberately Misleading People On The Internet Free Speech?

dryriver writes: Before anyone cries "free speech must always be free", let me qualify the question. Under a myriad of different internet sites and blogs are these click-through adverts that promise quick "miracle cures" for everything from toenail fungus to hair loss to tinnitus to age-related skin wrinkles to cancer. A lot of the ads begin with copy that reads "This one weird trick cures ......" Most of the "cures" on offer are complete and utter crap designed to lift a few dollars from the credit cards of hundreds of thousands of gullible internet users. The IQ boosting pills that supposedly give you "amazing mental focus after just 2 weeks" don't work at all. Neither do any of the anti-ageing or anti-wrinkle creams, regardless of which "miracle berry" extract they put in them this year. And if you try to cure your cancer with an Internet remedy rather than seeing a doctor, you may actually wind up dead. So the question — is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.

But how do you determine what is "true"?

[apraetor]

The real crux of the issue is that, in order for it to be prohibited, someone must determine what IS "fake".

And no one seems to be able to do it

[Okian Warrior]

The real crux of the issue is that, in order for it to be prohibited, someone must determine what IS "fake".

And no one seems to be able to do it, and there are a lot of people with an agenda or things to "lose" that could gain by falsely accusing something of being fake.

I can cite examples.

In the first example, in response to CNN harping on about "fake news" after the election, someone posted that CNN (Boston affiliate) accidentally ran a porno movie during Thanksgiving. This was picked up by a newspaper in France, then went through all of the MSM outlets.

Eventually CNN apologized [slashdot.org] for the airing.

...except that t

Re:

[Marlin Schwanke]

The real crux of the issue is that, in order for it to be prohibited, someone must determine what IS "fake".

There are real, provable facts in this life, but these days with the Internet being what it is, and too many people being what they are, you could’t prove it by me.

Already decided for medicine: no

[ToTheStars]

It's already established that making claims about medicine is subject to scrutiny by the FDA (or the relevant authority in your jurisdiction). This oversight may not be on-the-ball at all times (especially if the ads are made through dodgy ad networks or shell corporations), and it can be evaded to some extent with appropriate disclaimers ("we're just a dietary supplement, honest!"), but if you'll pardon the pun, claiming medical efficacy comes with serious side effects.

Fraud is not free speech

[schwit1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

What about spam?

[NotQuiteReal]

I am pretty sure all the sources for these email subject lines in my Spam Inbox should be banned too (although I am sure many Russian ladies would like to meet me)

Can I ask you? "Was you ever have sex with a Russian girl? Would you like to try it?"

Good day, I accidentally found a letter from you, I remember how we communicated with you.

Hi, I'm from Russia - a dream to live abroad, my name is Mary, can we get started?

Hi there,Please don't jump into the conclusion that I am yet another spamster who wa