- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It is more broad reaching. From the article- "Alvarez made his claims by way of introducing himself as an elected member of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Pomona, Calif. There is nothing to suggest that he received anything in exchange or that listeners especially believed him."
I do agree with your scenarios though. When speech amounts to theft it should not be protected under the first amendment. However, when nothing is received in exchange, no matter how contemptible it may be, I think it should be protected.
So someone who uses such info to benefit monetarily thus denying someone else those funds would (could) still be charged for lying . . . this act doesn't touch on that; it's just 'in general - you can make up stories'