And again, this human being that is being charged is no longer the CEO, therefore is simply misdirection and nothing more.
Scarcely. He only resigned BECAUSE he was indicted. And sued by the SEC.
I think theres a line, not as blurred as some believe, that goes from "im not a financial advisor, this is all my opinion, dont believe what I say as fact" as a relevant stance on things posted, to flat out deliberate ignorance of many talking points, an ignorance that could likely be proven without a reasonable doubt just by plain obviousness if taken the time to study the law as well as the content posted.
Many people operate under the assumption that "free speech" covers all the bases when it comes to that specific right.
It isn't blurred at all. A great many courts have ruled that what's said on the internet is just chatter, not to be taken seriously. By now, there's plenty of precedent. Having to pay attorneys' fees if you bring a SLAPP suit can be painful.