That’d be what the lawyers would argue about in court. What’s more, proving intent to defraud is required and can be difficult.
But what I’m saying is that the reason fraud is illegal is the result of the speech, not the speech itself. If the speech causes no harm (or loss yadda yadda), it’s not actionable, be it lies or truth.
Right, so you and the person doing the censoring just disagree on what’s harmful.
That’d be what the lawyers would argue about in court. What’s more, proving intent to defraud is required and can be difficult.
But what I’m saying is that the reason fraud is illegal is the result of the speech, not the speech itself. If the speech causes no harm (or loss yadda yadda), it’s not actionable, be it lies or truth.