if fraudulent speech would be "subject to restraining or punitive force", would not equally fraudulent speech such as the shouting of slogans at a speech or the spamming or flaming of internet communication in order to prevent the exercise of free speech (i.e. communication of ideas) be equally subject to some restriction, regulation, or at least moral approbation? fraud \Fraud\ (fr[add]d), n. [F. fraude, L. fraus, fraudis; prob. akin to Skr. dh[=u]rv to injure, dhv[.r] to cause to fall, and E. dull.] 1. Deception deliberately practiced with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; injurious stratagem; deceit; trick.
Fraud has two components...
Dishonesty...... and intent to bring about damage or to secure unrightful advantage.
Two merely speak dishonestly, is not necessarily fraud.
There is much here in this definition which could easily be seen to apply to the efforts of "trolls" to restrain free speech. Bell Labs has done exhaustive studies regarding signal to noise ratio. I think the analogy to signal and noise on the internet is apt. "artifice...srategem..trick", rights injured.
Noise prevents speech.