Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?Are there any kinds of laws that prohibit...

Why would space fleets be aligned?

Non-Cancer terminal illness that can affect young (age 10-13) girls?

Why don't key signatures indicate the tonic?

Why is Agricola named as such?

Why did the villain in the first Men in Black movie care about Earth's Cockroaches?

Why did Luke use his left hand to shoot?

What is the difference between "...", '...', $'...', and $"..." quotes?

Is there any risk in sharing info about technologies and products we use with a supplier?

Building an exterior wall within an exterior wall for insulation

Is there a verb that means to inject with poison?

Which communication protocol is used in AdLib sound card?

What is the difference between rolling more dice versus fewer dice?

TikZ graph edges not drawn nicely

Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?

Bash script to truncate subject line of incoming email

What happens when I Twin Life Transference?

What will happen if Parliament votes "no" on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?

Is a new boolean field better than null reference when a value can be meaningfully absent?

How to visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem from complex analysis or geometric topology considerations?

How do you funnel food off a cutting board?

Can 5 Aarakocra PCs summon an Air Elemental?

After checking in online, how do I know whether I need to go show my passport at airport check-in?

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

Why are all my replica super soldiers young adults or old teenagers?



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













1















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
    4 hours ago













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    4 hours ago
















1















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
    4 hours ago













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    4 hours ago














1












1








1








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 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
    4 hours ago













  • Obligatory XKCD

    – brhans
    4 hours ago














  • 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
    4 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
4 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
4 hours ago















Obligatory XKCD

– brhans
4 hours ago





Obligatory XKCD

– brhans
4 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














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
    4 hours ago





















0














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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Geremia
    4 hours ago













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









4














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
    4 hours ago


















4














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
    4 hours ago
















4












4








4







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 4 hours ago

























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





















  • 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













0














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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Geremia
    4 hours ago


















0














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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Geremia
    4 hours ago
















0












0








0







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 4 hours ago

























answered 4 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





















  • 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




















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

Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...