This has nothing to do with disinformation. These laws and civil statutes only apply to knowingly making false statements with the provable intent to cause serious harm or losses.

These dangerously reckless twists, by an Obama appointed judge who should know better, are suggesting the legalization of malicious attack, something that would empower full on fascism and ultimately lead to the reduction of freedom of speech.

The problem isn't the laws, they are well defined. The problem is how biased the enforcement of the laws are and the frequency that courts entertain, through bias or recklessness, the flawed application of the laws' criteria.

Like most political or publicly high profile criminal and civil cases, we have seen a progressive erosion of the courts' willingness to be unbiased, impartial, and to enforce the law as established. When it comes to attacking political rivals with these laws, we see activist judges forgoing the need to prove intent or direct harm. Instead gaslighting about the defendants' possible assumed nefarious motivations are good enough, or otherwise the disregarding the requirement of willful intent and requiring only damages as a result. We have to remember that willful harm is required and harm coming from reckless speech is frequently not covered by these laws, but we see courts disregard the willful intent requirement, establish that the defendant's words resulted in harm, then require only that recklessness due to personal gain is required. It is human nature to want to punish those we perceive as selfish, especially if that negatively impacts others, but courts are expected to enforce the law, blindly without bias, not abuse it for their personal ideas of social reform.