21

There are a number of people and websites that make money by spreading conspiracy theories and other 'fake news'. I think InfoWars is probably the most notorious, but it's only one of a multitude of similar sites and people out there.

Let's say for now we have definitive proof that the person hosting a site that spreads conspiracy theories does not believe their theories are true, say they are recorded making fun of their watchers for believing the nonsense they say, including explicitly saying they make it up because people will pay to hear it.

If this person benefits only from advertising from people watching their site, are they in any way guilty of fraud by telling people something they didn't believe to get ad revenue?

In another example let's say they had a close relationship with a group that profited more directly from the conspiracy theory. Say they are spreading the dinar revaluation theory (the claim that the US is going to, somehow, try to repair Iraq's dinar currency by elevating it from its near-worthless current state back to what it was worth prior to 9/11, for some reason. Thus, supposedly, one should buy up dinar now before the US suddenly increases its value to 100 times its current value). Say after the person preaches about how much it makes sense for the dinar to be raised by the government they then point everyone to a website that sells dinar, at a huge markup, and in exchange the person receives some kickbacks or other benefits for recommending the site.

Would the person be guilty of fraud for spreading a conspiracy theory that encouraged people to make a bad financial investment they would benefit from?

Community
  • 1
dsollen
  • 8,440
  • 5
  • 47
  • 97
  • 1
    Umberto Eco wrote Foucault's Pendulum. Would you call that fraud or art? How about authors who claim "this is a true story" on the back of their fiction? – o.m. May 10 '21 at 15:27
  • 1
    Some of the disinformation spread is defamation and some of the spreaders are now using a week defense that no one should believe them. These are "news" shows not novels. – George White May 10 '21 at 23:07
  • 12
    Steven King does not believe his stories are true ## People are allowed to profit from fiction. – Dale M May 10 '21 at 22:17
  • 2
    I think a differentiating factor here is the way the material is presented. Fiction novels are usually obviously so, and purchased in the fiction section of a(n online) bookstore. These theories are presented as truth. I'm not saying it's fraud, and don't think it's 'safe' as a society to prosecute it as such, just don't think this is the best analogy to make that point. – TCooper May 11 '21 at 01:07
  • 8
    It's worth noting that the speaker's belief about the truth of their statements can make a difference in civil libel cases in the US. Statements against public figures must be made with "actual malice" to be libelous (NYT v. Sullivan), which means in practice that you have to prove that the speaker knew the statements to be false (or that they had reckless disregard for the truth.) However, this is different from the crime of fraud or any criminal liability. – Michael Seifert May 11 '21 at 11:58
  • Law aside, what difference does it make if the one spreading conspiracy theories believes in them or not, or whether he profits or thinks he does a service to mankind? The problem is that so many people believe in dangerous nonsense and cause untold damage because of it. – gnasher729 May 11 '21 at 13:53
  • 2
    to what it was worth prior to 9/11 — did 9/11 have much of an impact on the value of the dinar? Iraq was not involved, nor were any Iraqis. – gerrit May 11 '21 at 15:12
  • 2
    @gnasher729 The difference is between being mistaken (legal) and potentially committing fraud (illegal). – Barmar May 11 '21 at 15:16
  • 1
    Couldn't someone reasonably say that, at one point they didn't believe in the theories, but later they had an epiphany and realized that the conspiracy theories were all true! – Mark Rogers May 11 '21 at 18:55
  • Not to shatter your world view, but you do know that "marketing departments" exist, right? That's literally paying people to lie for you so you make more money. Does not seem to be illegal. – nvoigt May 12 '21 at 18:55

4 Answers4

29

Let's say for now we have definitive proof that the person hosting a site that spreads conspiracy theories does not believe their theories are true, say they are recorded making fun of their watchers for believing the nonsense they say, including explicitly saying they make it up because people will pay to hear it.

I'm guessing you're asking if this is 'wire fraud'. I expect that if the advertised offer is that "people will pay to hear it", then so long as they actually hear it, that's not fraud. It would be different if people paid to hear it and then they failed to deliver what people wanted—if they didn't hear what they had paid for. If the customers are satisfied, it doesn't matter how the seller values it. Different people can legitimately value the same goods/services differently. A salesperson selling fairy unicorn dolls to little girls does not have to believe in fairies themselves.

It is also highly dangerous for the purposes of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Belief to set any sort of 'truth' standard on what is allowed to be said. Who gets to decide 'the truth'? Authoritative sources are sometimes wrong. New discoveries can sometimes contradict a widespread 'common sense' orthodoxy, and sound crazy. The Earth is spinning around the sun. Time passes at different rates for different people depending on how fast you move. If you think a claim is wrong, the proper response is to present the evidence and argument you think proves it wrong, not try to silence it or punish it. That only drives it underground, where the glamour of being persecuted and the absence of contrary arguments only makes it stronger and more persuasive. And there are always other people who think many of our beliefs are false and crazy! We don't want to be persecuted for wrongthink ourselves. Tolerance for and a listening openness to differing beliefs, even beliefs we hold in contempt, makes our own beliefs safer and more secure. As Noam Chomsky put it: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." If we don't grant freedom of belief to other people, why should they grant it to us?

It's probably also worth noting that this isn't "definitive proof", as they may instead be lying when they say they don't believe it. Somebody who believes in conspiracy theories may deny it in conversation with someone (e.g., an employer or a friend or family member) who would treat them negatively if they were discovered to 'believe in conspiracy theories'. "No, of course I don't believe in banned religion X/heretical politics Y! It's all a load of nonsense!" The same goes for any socially unacceptable heresy. People who are commonly persecuted for their beliefs frequently hide them.

Community
  • 1
Areopagitica
  • 307
  • 2
  • 3
  • 3
    The second example in the question is a well-known scam. Perhaps address that as well? – Peter Mortensen May 11 '21 at 10:20
  • 4
    Isn't deciding the truth what the legal system is for? Despite Freedom of Speech, we already allow people to punish others for libel, or for making claims when it harms their business (see, for example, the current Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit), and it seems like that has a better chance of clearing things up than trying to disprove claims outside of the courts. – user3153372 May 11 '21 at 17:06
  • 2
    @user3153372: no, the legal system is for deciding whether and how to apply the government’s monopoly on pro-active violence. – jmoreno May 12 '21 at 01:38
  • the premise at the beginning of the answer eerily sounds like facebook's business model :) – Thomas May 12 '21 at 21:15
10

Generally speaking, this is only true in the case of statements about publicly held securities presented in a manner that suggests that it can be relied upon.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
8

Most probably not. The elements for fraud generally include:

  • a stated fact that is false and material to the fraud
  • the fraudster's knowledge (or willful ignorance) that the fact is false
  • the fraudster intending that the mark should be suckered as a result
  • the mark's ignorance that the fact is false
  • the mark's reliance on the false fact
  • the mark has a right to rely on the false fact
  • the mark has an actual damage/injury resulting from it all

It'd be really hard to prove all of that to get to fraud... not impossible, but very improbable IMO.

It'd be much easier for your dinar scheme to go after him for securities violations or similar.

Peter Mortensen
  • 191
  • 5
webmarc
  • 331
  • 1
  • 6
2

People don't have to believe Alex Jones and Infowars to find the content entertaining. My boyfriend enjoys Jones because he likes watching the man's crazy antics as he defends that chemicals in the water "turn the freakin' frogs gay". There's also the case that, on that matter, Jones is right for the wrong reasons: Frogs are especially sensitive to chemical changes in the water and several frog populations have dramatically dropped due to sensitivity to chemical sensitivity in the water, which means a lower breeding population overall. Yes, chemicals in the water does dramatically reduce the rate of tadpole eggs quite noticeably... but I doubt it's because frogs are now batting for the other team.

Jones makes his money the same way that people on any television show from Fox to CNN to Fox Mulder do: Ad revenue. It's only a problem if he is being untruthful in this avenue.

hszmv
  • 22,994
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
  • 13
    This doesn't seem to answer the question in any way. – bdb484 May 11 '21 at 02:07
  • 2
    Alex Jones also sells a number of products that he promotes on his show, including making various claims about what the products do. – Ryan M May 11 '21 at 04:43
  • 4
    "I doubt it's because frogs are now batting for the other team." It's because it's turning them intersex and infertile, instead, which is presumably what he meant by "gay". https://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476 – nick012000 May 11 '21 at 08:02
  • 6
    It's a lot harder to justify Alex Jones' claims that the families of the Sandy Hook victims are liars as just good fun. Some people obviously do believe his dangerous lies. – Eric Nolan May 11 '21 at 09:00
  • 2
    @EricNolan: There's only really one way to fight that. And it isn't censorship. – hszmv May 11 '21 at 11:26
  • 2
    @nick012000 - Those are not even close to the same.... – Obie 2.0 May 11 '21 at 15:10
  • 3
    @Obie2.0 They're both a part of LGBT, which could be described as "gay" by someone who's a non-expert and doesn't care about offending them. – nick012000 May 11 '21 at 22:20
  • 2
    @hszmv There are many ways to fight that, that vary from arrest, censorship, assault, harassment, education, social exclusion, liability, pissing into the wind, deplatforming. Some may be more effective and/or legal than others, and some may be outside of how you want people to fight it. – Yakk May 12 '21 at 15:02
  • @Yakk: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." - Almansor, Heinrich Heine Trans: "Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn men." Famously etched onto a plaque commemerating *The Empty Library" memorial in Berlin, a memorial to the 20,000 books burnt on the spot in 1933, at the start of Hitler's rise to power. Censorship has never successfully destroyed an idea. – hszmv May 13 '21 at 11:58
  • @hszmv Censorship has stopped a huge number of ideas. Piles of history from the past was censored, and we don't know what it was that was erased. And destroyed is not successfully fought; "nobody knows it existed"', while it happens, is not "the idea isn't believed by millions". I get free speech absolutism. At least it's an ethos. – Yakk May 13 '21 at 13:02