Is it really legal to knowingly lie in public as a public figure? It's recently been revealed (by himself, even) that the famous business man and Shark Tank member Kevin O'Leary actually does own Bitcoin, and that he bought them in 2017. Ever since, until recently, he's been publicly mocking it, calling it a &quot;nothing burger&quot;, etc. Now that he's revealed that he bought in 2017, but &quot;couldn't talk about it&quot;, people just seem to accept that as nothing. Totally normal and acceptable. Aren't there laws against lying in public as a public figure? I mean, he had Bitcoin but kept actively bashing it. It's one thing if he said: &quot;No comments.&quot; or something, but going out of your way to badmouth it even though you had it, denying that you had any?
That really depends what they lie about In the United States, there's no general law against lying. The fact that a statement is false doesn't inherently strip it of protection under the first amendment. Public figures lie to the public all the time. That's why news companies have fact checkers. Was it defamatory? It is, however, illegal to defame someone. If someone makes a false statement of fact (that is, not an opinion) about a person or company, they may be liable for that. Whether they are liable for that depends on a number of factors, including whether the target is a public figure (see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan), the speaker's knowledge of its falsity, and whether the target was damaged by it. Was it part of some other criminal scheme? False statements to the public could be part of some sort of fraud, for instance. Pump and dump schemes, for instance, are illegal. Was it under oath? Lying under oath (such as when testifying in court) would constitute perjury, which is a crime. There are many other situations in which lying could be a crime (such as lying on your taxes), but these are the main ones I can think of that would be about lying to the public. In this case (I'm unfamiliar with the details of what he said, so I'm just going off your description), I can't immediately think of any reason that could lead to liability. Mocking and calling something a &quot;nothing burger&quot; is pretty clearly an opinion, not a false statement of fact. I'm not aware of any securities law against saying you don't like something you're actually invested in (though I'm not especially familiar with securities law).
Ignoring the question of whether knowingly trying to deceive the IRS about the nature and purposes of an organization is a crime or even a lie, running any sort of tax-exempt organization for your own benefit is tax evasion and a crime. What you propose actually does happen in the US, but it's non commonly done by claiming tax exempt status a religious organization. Instead of registering fake churches (which strictly speaking isn't necessary as user6726's answer says), it's simpler just to register a fake charity. You don't need any of those things that you've noted that the IRS says a religious organization must have. Done intelligently, people running these scam charities do just enough charitable work to avoid investigation by the authorities while diverting the majority of earnings and donations of the organization to themselves through salaries and payments to for-profit businesses they own. Done not-so-intelligently, virtually all the proceeds of the scam charity end up in the hands the people running it, and those people often get caught and end up in jail. If proven, the charges against Steve Bannon would be a notable recent example of this. While it's less common with religious organizations, people have done time for misusing a religious organization's tax exempt status. For example a Virginia couple were sentenced to prison for crimes relating to a scheme to route profits from a business through a religion organization they had set up.
I don't think the issue is that it is a violation of a law, but rather that it is a violation of the terms of service you agree to when you sign up for the site - which is a breach of contract. You can be sued for breach of contract, if the site can prove any damages based on your breach. So if you use a bot to make money on a site, in violation of the site's license agreement, then I believe the site could indeed sue you to get the money back. Also, the phrasing of your question ("creating a robot") raises a separate issue. It is not actually creating the bot that is illegal, but using it where not allowed can be a violation of contract. Suppose person A makes a poker bot, just as a programming exercise, and doesn't use it. But then suppose person B uses the robot created by person A on a site that forbids it. Although this could be a gray area, I do not believe the site would have any recourse against person A (even though they probably would against person B).
It is probably illegal, just not pursued. In the case of something like bank robbery, you'd have a victim that filed a police report. A murder would need to be discovered somehow - either a missing person report or a dead body. If the porn shoot happened somewhere that a member of the public saw it and subsequently filed a police report, the video could be used as evidence. Absent a report, the police simply have no reason to look into it (unless the police catches them in the act, but we probably don't see those videos posted online). Why would these public offenses go unreported? Perhaps nobody sees it. Perhaps the bystanders in the video are paid extras. Maybe they're filming in what appears to be public but is actually private property. Perhaps they have a permit to use a public space for this purpose. Perhaps they just got lucky. Again, there might be some confirmation bias here - you're not going to see as many videos of folks they catch breaking the law, since they will either be interrupted and stopped or (maybe) have their videos ordered taken down.
It would be a violation of 18 USC 1001, which is the law against making false statements to the federal government. Paul Mozer, who was a Salomon Brothers trader, received a four month sentence for doing something along those lines in 1994. Bidding on something implies an intent to pay for the thing, which in this case is a falsehood: in so doing, one "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" (that you don't intend to pay for the thing).
Yes. This is legal. The only possible liability for a truthful and accurate disclosure of fact is a defamation action (in the absence of a privacy clause in the contract) and this is truthful so it would not violate anyone's legal rights. Credit reporting agencies routinely collect such information and court actions to collect unpaid debts are also a matter of public record. Credit reporting agencies in this business also have some additional obligations (such as the obligation to remove an entry after a period of time and an obligation to present rebuttal statements from the person affected). But, you should understand that merely publicly sharing truthful information about a factual matter is not really what a "blacklist" means. Normally, a blacklist includes an implied understanding that certain actions will be taken as a result of placement on the list rather than merely sharing information for what it is worth. An example of a law prohibiting a true blacklist from Colorado is the following: § 8-2-110. Unlawful to publish blacklist No corporation, company, or individual shall blacklist, or publish, or cause to be blacklisted or published any employee, mechanic, or laborer discharged by such corporation, company, or individual, with the intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic, or laborer from engaging in or securing similar or other employment from any other corporation, company, or individual. Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the statute would be constitutional if enforced under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, although one U.S. District court case from 1971 did uphold its validity in the face of a somewhat different kind of challenge. Resident Participation, Inc. v. Love, 322 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Colo. 1971).
The developers of the site localbitcoins.com are providing a service that is not itself illegal. They explain their service and its limitations in their Terms of Service (my emphasis): All trades on this site are concluded solely between users of the service, and while LocalBitcoins.com may help in resolving disputes between the parties, it does not itself become a party to such transactions, contracts or relationships. LocalBitcoins.com is not a Bitcoin marketplace but a service enabling its users to set up markets for peer-to-peer exchange by way of creating advertisements for trades directed to other users. Until local or national jurisdictions decide that people advertising to conduct person to person crytpocurrency trades are illegal, the site is legal. Some users of the site may be evading taxes or laundering money, and those could be crimes in jurisdictions, but if so, those crimes are perpetrated by the individuals that have contacted each other through the site, and not the site developers or owners themselves.
Lying about a stock position can be a form of securities fraud, for example in a pump and dump scheme giving false information to the public (e.g. on Reddit) about a stock after buying it at a cheap price to &quot;pump&quot; its value to sell it later. Saying that people should buy a stock and hold it because it harms specific short sellers of that stock is probably not fraud - US law protects speech which is not false statements of fact in almost all contexts. However, specific statements about how much someone has made investing in the stock could be illegal if the statements are untrue (looking specifically at the person claiming they turned $600 into $130,000 in 16 days). It's also possible that some of the users of the subreddit are professional investment advisors and their statements would have to come with certain disclosures per SEC rules, but it's hard to tell from SEC's FAQ whether that applies to statements made anonymously.