Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing have raised various ethical questions. Following many other authors, we distinguish between traditional conspiracy theories and the new conspiracism. This paper poses the question, What is the ethical status of the new conspiracism? We argue that the new conspiracism faces specific ethical problems. The new conspiracism has two forms: (1) the doubt-sowing branch and (2) the agitating branch. We argue that the doubt-sowing new conspiracists are culpably ignorant and can thus be morally blamed. The agitating new conspiracists have additional problems, as they take privileges they should not take and degrade political debates. We argue that people who participate in public political debates and blame others should make assertions and nothing else, as their audience has not consented to lax talk that does not assert anything. The speakers determine the illocutionary status of their sayings, and when they make wrong choices, they are morally responsible for those choices. The agitating new conspiracists are free-riders; they are responsible for speech acts that are not genuine assertions and whose main function is to signal one’s political side.