> Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
That doesn't make sense. Any restrictions on speech (e.g. prohibiting lying in commercials, prohibiting yelling fire in a crowded room, etc.) always need to go through the lens of whether there is a "legitimate government interest", because the courts have been very clear that any restrictions on speech much have a clear rationale. If the SEC wants to argue that posts on a public website forum are somehow collusion, they need to argue why those posts are not protected by the first amendment.
Of course, it's easy to come up with a clear rationale for why one would limit speech in this case, and "commercial" speech is much more open to restrictions. However, I don't see how one could argue "I'm buying a shit ton of GME, and I think you should too, because I want to screw over the hedge fund guys" is any different, just because it's on a forum, from all the other types of investment advice and theories that goes out all the time.
That doesn't make sense. Any restrictions on speech (e.g. prohibiting lying in commercials, prohibiting yelling fire in a crowded room, etc.) always need to go through the lens of whether there is a "legitimate government interest", because the courts have been very clear that any restrictions on speech much have a clear rationale. If the SEC wants to argue that posts on a public website forum are somehow collusion, they need to argue why those posts are not protected by the first amendment.
Of course, it's easy to come up with a clear rationale for why one would limit speech in this case, and "commercial" speech is much more open to restrictions. However, I don't see how one could argue "I'm buying a shit ton of GME, and I think you should too, because I want to screw over the hedge fund guys" is any different, just because it's on a forum, from all the other types of investment advice and theories that goes out all the time.