Egregoros

The generally accepted "buts" are:

1. Fraud (knowingly lying to someone to take advantage of them)

2. Conspiracy "I just SAID that anyone who kills trump will get a million dollars in Monero, what ever happened free speech?! I thought this is America!!"

3. Child porn "Wow look, it's just a bunch of random words, totally speech, but when you use this little program to decode it, it's actually pedobear.jpg" - Interestingly, this is the only "speech" that is restricted not because of its result but rather because of it's origin.

4. Incitement to violence/crime: Trying to manipulate someone into becoming violent and/or breaking the law. A fairly straightforward case would be if a hypnotist were to hypnotize people and tell them to go do crime. But this is a controversial topic, there have been cases where factual news was suppressed by the argument that "if people heard that, they'd riot", which is very much bullshit.

An interesting case was in the 60s(?) someone had a kids TV show and they told kids to dial some phone number that was a pay number (like those old phone sex things). I don't think they really lied, but they did get in trouble because it was considered manipulative.

It's not really *my* framework, it's more just what people generally accept.

> the left had managed to subvert

When you don't have trust and assumption of good faith from the people in power, all is lost. I think we're already to the point that no serious person really believes in Democracy anymore, it's just that changing things is dangerous and nobody is 100% sure what to replace it with.

If the next thing is entirely autocratic with no way to hold those in power accountable, that's going to be out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire.