Case 1: I have a blog that takes a conspiracy-level, anti-tax position. In it, I say crazy things like, “The IRS is illegitimate and financial records are unnecessary.” From reading this, someone shreds all their financial documents. As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.
Case 2: I am an open source maintainer of a home assistant program. It includes personal file management. Due to a bug in the software, an end-user’s financial documents are deleted.
The easiest distinction is that the conspiracy reader is taking an affirmative act of destroying their own documents. But, I think that’s less different than at first glance. The software user is setting up a computer system based on an open source program that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data. The conspiracy reader is setting up a worldview based on information that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data.
Why would the software bug be regulated, but the conspiracy falsehood not?
>> As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.
The blog is legal, but things can be legal and still have consequences.
Let's say you work at the office, and forget to lock up one night. Someone walks in and takes a laptop. -you- haven't committed a crime, but you'll likely lose your job.
Free Speech prevents the govt from locking you up based on what you say. (Unless what you say is a crime, like say inciting a riot.)
It does not provide you with the right to say whatever you like on a private (non govt) platform, nor does it absolve you from legal liability (consequences) of what you say.
The obvious example is "conspiracy to commit xxx" - sure all you did was -talk-, but Free Speech doesn't give you a pass for that.