“You don’t have a right to profit from speech” would be a convenient pretext to, for instance, shut down the New York Times.
But what about reach? Could we theoretically tax businesses based on the volume of people their content reaches, thus bringing in public revenue and/or disincentivizing:
- virality for the sake of ad impressions
- too-large (social) media networks
I'm sure it'd be phenomenally difficult to measure, but easier to pin down than arbitrary speech.
Personally, I’d be suspicious of a rule like that. In the end, it has to be enforced by the executive and it sounds a lot like “all speech will be tolerated except speech that spreads widely enough to be a threat to existing power.”
However, I do think that knowingly lying to obtain something of value is in many instances fraud.
I am not a lawyer.