Well in the context of advertising, the matter is not so much about boosting business by sowing chaos, but more of a matter of whether does free speech allow you to promote fraud. It has already been deemed that fraud is not necessarily protected by the first amendment, so what I'm saying is: if we reiterate that, it doesn't exactly "crush" free speech as it currently stands. But whether that's actually the case here (celebs involved in fraud), I agree is moot.
Let me also add that, holding someone to a fault doesn't necessarily mean to the same degree. Innocence isn't necessarily a black and white matter, and you can always adjust the punishment to fit the crime.
Anyhow, certainly the most innocent people here, are taxpayers not whatsoever involved in the matter, especially those who have been exclaiming about the dangers of crypto for reasons such as this. They should not be the ones forced to pay.
Actors tend to have agents for the very due diligence reason under discussion.
Hammer the agents for professional malpractice if the agents don't suss out the scam.