united-states fraud
If it can be proven that someone profiting from spreading conspiracy theories doesn&#39;t believe in them are they guilty of fraud?
<p>There are a number of people and websites that make money by spreading conspiracy theories and other 'fake news'.  I think <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars" rel="nofollow noreferrer">InfoWars</a> is probably the most notorious, but it's only one of a multitude of similar sites and people out there.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks" rel="nofollow noreferrer">9/11</a>, 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.</p>
<p>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?</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p>I'm guessing you're asking if this is 'wire fraud'. I expect that if the advertised offer is that &quot;people will pay to hear it&quot;, 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 <em>customers</em> are satisfied, it doesn't matter how the <em>seller</em> 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.</p>
<p>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 <em>proves</em> 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 <em>our</em> 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: &quot;If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.&quot; If we don't grant freedom of belief to other people, why should they grant it to us?</p>
<p>It's probably also worth noting that this isn't &quot;definitive proof&quot;, as they may instead be lying when they say they <em>don't</em> 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'. &quot;No, of course I don't believe in banned religion X/heretical politics Y! It's all a load of nonsense!&quot; The same goes for <em>any</em> socially unacceptable heresy. People who are commonly persecuted for their beliefs frequently hide them.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Most probably not. The elements for fraud generally include:</p>
<ul>
<li>a stated fact that is false <em>and</em> material to the fraud</li>
<li>the fraudster's knowledge (or willful ignorance) that the fact is false</li>
<li>the fraudster intending that the mark should be suckered as a result</li>
<li>the mark's ignorance that the fact is false</li>
<li>the mark's reliance on the false fact</li>
<li>the mark has a right to rely on the false fact</li>
<li>the mark has an actual damage/injury resulting from it all</li>
</ul>
<p>It'd be <em>really</em> hard to prove all of that to get to fraud... not impossible, but very improbable IMO.</p>
<p>It'd be <em>much</em> easier for your dinar scheme to go after him for securities violations or similar.</p>

<p>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 &quot;turn the freakin' frogs gay&quot;.   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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
