“Malinformation”, as defined by the U.S. government, “is based on fact, but used out of
context to mislead, harm, or manipulate”.
So, “malinformation” IS recognized, by the Government, as FACTUAL or at least “based on fact”.
If factual information might harm the Government, maybe the Government might not ought be engaging in the situation reported by factual data.
The above statement, even though it might seem obviously true, might be considered “manipulative”.
Just saying “the Government might not ought be doing things that would cause it harm if those things were ever exposed”, does indeed seek to manipulate the Government to not do things which, if discovered, would be harmful to it, if the fact were ever disclosed…like, oh say ASSASSINATING A PRESIDENT…or facilitating the attempted assassination of a President through neglect.
How is this OK?
How is the U.S. Government exempt from such scrutiny?
How is the press, citizen-based or professional, not allowed to report on facts in such a manner, as deemed by the Government, especially considering the information reported by present-day “main stream” media in “voluntary” cooperation with Project Mockingbird?
Isn’t reporting on…, questioning and challenging governmental actions and policies part-and-parcel of the events leading to the founding of our country?
Does anyone remember when the Supreme Court rendered the Smith Act essentially ineffective?
"The Supreme Court made two important decisions that effectually voided the Smith Act in 1957 and 1958. In Yates v. The United States, the justices decided that the teaching of abstract ideas was not the same as advocating a conspiracy. Soon after, in Watkins v. The United States, it was maintained that it was not the business of the federal government to expose their citizens’ private affairs. Although the Smith Act is still on the books today, it has not been used since 1961. "
– The Seattle Seven: The Smith Act Trials in Seattle (1952â1958) - Communism in Washington State History Project
So it’s materially different to advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. Government than to actually commit the act but it’s not OK to expose information that might lead to the distrust of the American Government…that might “harm” the Government or manipulate the Government to not not engage in such situations as those revealed in the first place.?
Why is exposing factual data about the Government more harmful to the Government than advocating for the overthrow of the Government (originally prohibited by the Smith Act).
Whom decides if the “malinformation” is taken out of context, is misleading, manipulative or harmful?
The Government does!
This is rather akin to asking the headsman his opinion of capital punishment, as it were.
This SEEMS TO BE a clear violation of the hard-won First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
I would call to wit that the articles in the Bill of Rights were originally deemed so obvious as to be unnecessary to codify.