Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?Are there any kinds of laws that prohibit...
Why did the villain in the first Men in Black movie care about Earth's Cockroaches?
Looking for a specific 6502 Assembler
What game did these black and yellow dice come from?
Hilchos Shabbos English Sefer
Removing whitespace between consecutive numbers
Eww, those bytes are gross
What is the difference between rolling more dice versus fewer dice?
Short story where statues have their heads replaced by those of carved insect heads
A Missing Symbol for This Logo
Is there a defined priority for pattern matching?
Why don't key signatures indicate the tonic?
How to make ice magic work from a scientific point of view?
Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?
Why was Lupin comfortable with saying Voldemort's name?
Why zero tolerance on nudity in space?
How can the probability of a fumble decrease linearly with more dice?
What happens when the wearer of a Shield of Missile Attraction is behind total cover?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
How to access internet and run apt-get through a middle server?
Do "fields" always combine by addition?
Why do we have to make "peinlich" start with a capital letter and also end with -s in this sentence?
Can I announce prefix 161.117.25.0/24 even though I don't have all of /24 IPs
Existence of Riemann surface, holomorphic maps
Early credit roll before the end of the film
Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?
Are there any kinds of laws that prohibit personally harmful speech?Can U.S. states establish state religions?First Amendment - U.S. ConstitutionDoes the 1st Amendment restrict executive actions?Is lying about a candidate protected speech in the United States?What distinguishes hate speech from harassment in the US?Is Trump’s barring of select media outlets from White House press conferences a violation of the First Amendment?What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?What does 'a kind of private charter' signify, for the 1st Amendment (US Constitution)?Publication of information illegally obtained, wikileaks relevancy
Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech? In other words, does it give a citizen or the press a right to spread falsehoods publicly?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
add a comment |
Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech? In other words, does it give a citizen or the press a right to spread falsehoods publicly?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
1
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech? In other words, does it give a citizen or the press a right to spread falsehoods publicly?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech? In other words, does it give a citizen or the press a right to spread falsehoods publicly?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
asked 5 hours ago
GeremiaGeremia
1698
1698
1
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago
1
1
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Sometimes
In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people.
On the other hand, the classic case of New York Times vs Sullivan said that, at least when the subjects were public officials (later broadened to public figures) it was not enough to prove simple falsehood in a defamation case, one must prove "actual malice" (an unfortunate term) which in this context means statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court in that case said, in effect, that if a newspaper had to be sure that its every statement could be proved true in every detail, it would be unwilling to vigorously report on matters of significant public concern (this is a paraphrase, I'll add a quote later).
Opinions are considered legally not to be either false or true. "President Jone is the worst leader the US has ever had" Is a statement of opinion, and so is not defamation.
Moreover, in political contexts, attempts to punish false statements of fact that are not defamatory have been held unconstitutional. One example was the "Stolen Valor" act, which punished falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal by the US armed forces. This was held to be against the First Amendment.
In general, regulation of speech (which here includes writing and other forms of communication) must be fairly narrowly drawn and must have good reasons behind them to survive a court challenge. How much so depends on the nature of the law, and particularly whether it is "content-neutral" or not.
Details and cites to come when i have a little more time.
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, under the First Amendment you may freely promulgate falsehoods in public. The only restrictions related to truth pertain to sworn statements (perjury), representations made in legal matters to the government, fraudulent statements (statements that you know to be false and are made to entice a person to engage in a contract of some sort), false (as well as deceptive) statements made in advertising, and defamatory statements. All political falsehoods are legally protected.
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37654%2fdoes-the-u-s-constitutions-first-ammendment-protect-false-speech%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sometimes
In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people.
On the other hand, the classic case of New York Times vs Sullivan said that, at least when the subjects were public officials (later broadened to public figures) it was not enough to prove simple falsehood in a defamation case, one must prove "actual malice" (an unfortunate term) which in this context means statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court in that case said, in effect, that if a newspaper had to be sure that its every statement could be proved true in every detail, it would be unwilling to vigorously report on matters of significant public concern (this is a paraphrase, I'll add a quote later).
Opinions are considered legally not to be either false or true. "President Jone is the worst leader the US has ever had" Is a statement of opinion, and so is not defamation.
Moreover, in political contexts, attempts to punish false statements of fact that are not defamatory have been held unconstitutional. One example was the "Stolen Valor" act, which punished falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal by the US armed forces. This was held to be against the First Amendment.
In general, regulation of speech (which here includes writing and other forms of communication) must be fairly narrowly drawn and must have good reasons behind them to survive a court challenge. How much so depends on the nature of the law, and particularly whether it is "content-neutral" or not.
Details and cites to come when i have a little more time.
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sometimes
In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people.
On the other hand, the classic case of New York Times vs Sullivan said that, at least when the subjects were public officials (later broadened to public figures) it was not enough to prove simple falsehood in a defamation case, one must prove "actual malice" (an unfortunate term) which in this context means statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court in that case said, in effect, that if a newspaper had to be sure that its every statement could be proved true in every detail, it would be unwilling to vigorously report on matters of significant public concern (this is a paraphrase, I'll add a quote later).
Opinions are considered legally not to be either false or true. "President Jone is the worst leader the US has ever had" Is a statement of opinion, and so is not defamation.
Moreover, in political contexts, attempts to punish false statements of fact that are not defamatory have been held unconstitutional. One example was the "Stolen Valor" act, which punished falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal by the US armed forces. This was held to be against the First Amendment.
In general, regulation of speech (which here includes writing and other forms of communication) must be fairly narrowly drawn and must have good reasons behind them to survive a court challenge. How much so depends on the nature of the law, and particularly whether it is "content-neutral" or not.
Details and cites to come when i have a little more time.
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sometimes
In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people.
On the other hand, the classic case of New York Times vs Sullivan said that, at least when the subjects were public officials (later broadened to public figures) it was not enough to prove simple falsehood in a defamation case, one must prove "actual malice" (an unfortunate term) which in this context means statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court in that case said, in effect, that if a newspaper had to be sure that its every statement could be proved true in every detail, it would be unwilling to vigorously report on matters of significant public concern (this is a paraphrase, I'll add a quote later).
Opinions are considered legally not to be either false or true. "President Jone is the worst leader the US has ever had" Is a statement of opinion, and so is not defamation.
Moreover, in political contexts, attempts to punish false statements of fact that are not defamatory have been held unconstitutional. One example was the "Stolen Valor" act, which punished falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal by the US armed forces. This was held to be against the First Amendment.
In general, regulation of speech (which here includes writing and other forms of communication) must be fairly narrowly drawn and must have good reasons behind them to survive a court challenge. How much so depends on the nature of the law, and particularly whether it is "content-neutral" or not.
Details and cites to come when i have a little more time.
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
Sometimes
In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people.
On the other hand, the classic case of New York Times vs Sullivan said that, at least when the subjects were public officials (later broadened to public figures) it was not enough to prove simple falsehood in a defamation case, one must prove "actual malice" (an unfortunate term) which in this context means statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court in that case said, in effect, that if a newspaper had to be sure that its every statement could be proved true in every detail, it would be unwilling to vigorously report on matters of significant public concern (this is a paraphrase, I'll add a quote later).
Opinions are considered legally not to be either false or true. "President Jone is the worst leader the US has ever had" Is a statement of opinion, and so is not defamation.
Moreover, in political contexts, attempts to punish false statements of fact that are not defamatory have been held unconstitutional. One example was the "Stolen Valor" act, which punished falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal by the US armed forces. This was held to be against the First Amendment.
In general, regulation of speech (which here includes writing and other forms of communication) must be fairly narrowly drawn and must have good reasons behind them to survive a court challenge. How much so depends on the nature of the law, and particularly whether it is "content-neutral" or not.
Details and cites to come when i have a little more time.
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
answered 4 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
11.2k2146
11.2k2146
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
Thank you for the detailed answer. Re: "Details and cites to come when i have a little more time." I'd be interested in how various U.S. States' constitutions differ on this issue (if in fact they touch it).
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, under the First Amendment you may freely promulgate falsehoods in public. The only restrictions related to truth pertain to sworn statements (perjury), representations made in legal matters to the government, fraudulent statements (statements that you know to be false and are made to entice a person to engage in a contract of some sort), false (as well as deceptive) statements made in advertising, and defamatory statements. All political falsehoods are legally protected.
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, under the First Amendment you may freely promulgate falsehoods in public. The only restrictions related to truth pertain to sworn statements (perjury), representations made in legal matters to the government, fraudulent statements (statements that you know to be false and are made to entice a person to engage in a contract of some sort), false (as well as deceptive) statements made in advertising, and defamatory statements. All political falsehoods are legally protected.
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, under the First Amendment you may freely promulgate falsehoods in public. The only restrictions related to truth pertain to sworn statements (perjury), representations made in legal matters to the government, fraudulent statements (statements that you know to be false and are made to entice a person to engage in a contract of some sort), false (as well as deceptive) statements made in advertising, and defamatory statements. All political falsehoods are legally protected.
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
Yes, under the First Amendment you may freely promulgate falsehoods in public. The only restrictions related to truth pertain to sworn statements (perjury), representations made in legal matters to the government, fraudulent statements (statements that you know to be false and are made to entice a person to engage in a contract of some sort), false (as well as deceptive) statements made in advertising, and defamatory statements. All political falsehoods are legally protected.
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
answered 5 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.8k455101
59.8k455101
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
That is too broad a statement. It doesn't cover defamation, which can be actionable, even in a political context, if the evidence is strong enough. And there can be other cases.
– David Siegel
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?
– Geremia
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37654%2fdoes-the-u-s-constitutions-first-ammendment-protect-false-speech%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?, I think a lot depends on what these "falsehoods" are meant to do, incite a panic, or saying the moon landing was fake... What is the purpose of the "false speech"?
– Ron Beyer
5 hours ago
Obligatory XKCD
– brhans
4 hours ago