should malinformation be banned?

[dead0man]

Malinformation is true and factual, but the "powers that be" believe that sharing the truth might increase negative outcomes.

[dead0man]

I get that this is a topic redavs might be afraid of and that this is a rather dead sub forum, but I was hoping for more than 11 votes in two weeks.

[satsuma]

Picked option #2 because confidentiality / privacy concerns are real in many circumstances. The umbrella term "malinformation" calls to mind 1984 trials in which the truth is no defense. The core free speech issue is political speech, which your opponents may consider "harmful," but that doesn't mean it's harmful enough to justify breaking the free speech norms.

[RFK 2024]

Malinformation is such an Orwellian term.  No government should be allowed to ban any form of speech, especially if it’s the truth.  Mind you I’m not one for banning misinformation either.  How about we support all forms of free speech and let people figure the truth out for themselves?   I would argue that if we did so the current misinformation/conspiracies running rampant would fizzle themselves out.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Democracy cannot meaningfully function if information is restricted on the grounds that it could cause harm. The only reasonable exception I can think of is state secrets, but even allowing that exception opens the door to abuse by the authorities that damages the ability of the people to keep them accountable. Consider that the government surveilling the public was considered a state secret, and that the man who told the truth has to live in another country now.

[Ferguson97]

There are obviously some circumstances where this should be illegal, like doxing or posting private information such as someone's social security number or credit card number.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Sharing the truth should never be illegal, even if, and especially if, it upsets those in power.

Of course, I'm limiting it to actual factual information, not what bedroom scientists/politicians/theologians/etc have decided is "fact"

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are always edge cases, but generally of course it shouldn't be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are always edge cases, but generally of course it shouldn't be.

This. Ferguson brought up countervailing right-to-privacy concerns, and there's a whole other set of subjects that comes up in situations of total war, but generally speaking state actors paternalistically restricting information of public interest "for the public's own good" is antidemocratic and dangerous to society in and of itself.