Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?












3















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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:31













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    Feb 26 at 22:38
















3















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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:31













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    Feb 26 at 22:38














3












3








3








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?










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Feb 26 at 22:26









GeremiaGeremia

1849




1849








  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:31













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    Feb 26 at 22:38














  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:31













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    Feb 26 at 22:38








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
Feb 26 at 22:31







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
Feb 26 at 22:31















Obligatory XKCD

– brhans
Feb 26 at 22:38





Obligatory XKCD

– brhans
Feb 26 at 22:38










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:56





















1














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:45











  • "All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

    – Geremia
    Feb 26 at 23:04













  • @Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

    – phoog
    Feb 27 at 23:43











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:56


















6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:56
















6












6








6







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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 26 at 23:15

























answered Feb 26 at 22:42









David SiegelDavid Siegel

12.1k2347




12.1k2347













  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:56





















  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:56



















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
Feb 26 at 22:56







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
Feb 26 at 22:56













1














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:45











  • "All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

    – Geremia
    Feb 26 at 23:04













  • @Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

    – phoog
    Feb 27 at 23:43
















1














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:45











  • "All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

    – Geremia
    Feb 26 at 23:04













  • @Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

    – phoog
    Feb 27 at 23:43














1












1








1







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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 26 at 23:20

























answered Feb 26 at 22:32









user6726user6726

60.3k455103




60.3k455103













  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:45











  • "All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

    – Geremia
    Feb 26 at 23:04













  • @Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

    – phoog
    Feb 27 at 23:43



















  • 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
    Feb 26 at 22:45











  • "All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

    – Geremia
    Feb 26 at 23:04













  • @Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

    – phoog
    Feb 27 at 23:43

















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
Feb 26 at 22:45





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
Feb 26 at 22:45













"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

– Geremia
Feb 26 at 23:04







"All political falsehoods are legally protected." You mean falsehoods told in political campaigns and advertising, right?

– Geremia
Feb 26 at 23:04















@Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

– phoog
Feb 27 at 23:43





@Geremia presumably, but as David Siegel notes, it is possible for a political statement to be defamatory. If a candidate states (with "actual malice") that the opposing candidate committed some crime when in fact the opposing candidate did not, that is not likely to be protected by the first amendment.

– phoog
Feb 27 at 23:43


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

How to send String Array data to Server using php in android

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Is anime1.com a legal site for watching anime?