zlacker

Let's be clear here. You have the right to spout off in the public square without government consequences. Others, including Meta itself, are still free to hold you accountable for what you say.

>>10000t+(OP)
The next sentence: "What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law", so governmental consequences is what the OP was referring to.

It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes, but "spouting off" is not, and must never be, a crime.

>>throwa+g
> It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes

By my reading, it wasn’t OP who did this conflating.

>>lcnPyl+h3
>>> you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence. What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law.

"spouting off..used against you in a court of law"

But, even if the OP didn't intend for these two to be tied together in this way, then a very strong constitutional right still exists for spouting off, so whether conflation occurred or not is moot.

>>10000t+(OP)
The firm was also creating fake profiles on FB. It isnt clear if "what you say" even came from you!