Does the 1st Amendment protect lies. . . .

In New York Times v Sullivan (1964), the Court extended First Amendment protection to false statements of fact in a defamation suit. The Court held such statements, when made about about a public official, could not be the basis for awarding damages, at least without evidence that the false statements either were made recklessly or with knowledge of their falsity. The Court suggested that, while false statements contribute nothing of value to political discourse, they need protection to allow "breathing room" for statements that are true. Without this protection, the Court noted, true statements might not be made either out of a fear that the speaker could be later proven wrong, or that a biased jury might find the statements to be untrue even when they are not. While the Court's majority refused to extend protection to deliberate lies, three justices would have gone further and held that public officials and public affairs can be discussed "with impunity."

law2.umkc.edu...

The Susan B. Anthony List appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear arguments in the case.

SABL is asking for two specific rulings from the Court in Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus. The first goes to the district court’s ruling that SABL did not have standing because they were not harmed. SABL argued that the threat of prosecution essentially puts a “chilling effect” on its free speech in violation of their First Amendment rights. This allowed them, in their belief, to bring a “preemptive” claim to challenge the law. Meaning, even though nothing had happened, something could happen and, therefore, they had a right to challenge the law. The court ruled that in order for the organization to be able bring a claim they must admit that the statement they made was indeed false and admit that they intended to make false statements in the future.

www.truth-out.org...

“It has long been clear that First Amendment protection does not hinge on the truth of the matter expressed…It is speculative at best to conclude that criminally punishing lies about having received congressionally-awarded medals is the best and only way to ensure the integrity of such medals….The greatest damage done seems to be to the reputation of the liars themselves.”

– Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, majority opinion in U.S. v. Alvarez, striking down the Stolen Valor Act, August 17, 2010, (reconsideration denied March 21, 2011, appeal to Supreme Court due by August 18)

blog.constitutioncenter.org...



_______________________________________________________________________________________


All this talk of banning fake news is (in my opinion) just talk.
It is not essential to the 1st Amendment that speech be truthful in order to be free. Now I'm no lawyer, but even a simple old man such as myself can use the tools provided by the internet to illustrate that this discussion has already been made and determined by the Supreme Court.

Lying, as far as I'm concerned and from what I understand, is an element of speech and does enjoy the full protection of the 1st Amendment.

So talk of banning sites, censoring speech is unconstitutional.

Now government may not do it, media sites may censor and do government's work by proxy. That still doesn't make it right, but it may be legal.

Anyway, just my take on it. Just my "opinion" on the matter.

I'm sure there will be those who will disagree.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If lies were to be banned then every politician, MSM talking head, PR rep., and so on would be facing sanctioned public executions as that's their tradecraft.

I would like to see consequences doled out for things like LYING to get nations into wars, and such. Soothsaying issues is one thing, but what the Neocon's, and the Neolib's have done the past 15 years is ultra super mega diabolical.

Never mind.

It doesnt protect libel, slander or false witness. But random generic lies, yes. Otherwise advertisements would be much different, dont you think..

I think it might be entirely legal for a browser like Chrome to label certain sites as "fake news" sites. Or there are extensions people can buy that alert them when they are on a "fake news" site. I think Facebook has the right to shut down fake news stories, as well.

There are actually people out there generating fake news, possibly to gain political advantage, I haven't researched their motives yet, although I know one person does it for advertising revenue. But this is clearly wrong. The only reasons someone would support this are if they benefited by the fake news or believed the fake news.

Of course, I see a distinction between those who generate fake news and places like ATS. But ATS already has a policy of denying ignorance, and they already have a policy of putting fake news in the hoax bin. These policies should be enforced.

Go to a pawn shop with a bunch of fake jewelry, but every now and then you find a real gem.

The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech.

I would argue the MSM falsely using nazi comparisons against Trump, which has caused protests/riots/property&physical damage, to not be protected under the first amendment. Look at the MSM narrative of widespread police targeting of Blacks, resulting in riots, property damage, and even murders of police officers. That is not protected speech, and all those affected by the lies of MSM should take legal recourse.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Of course it is (or at least should be) protected for the same reason telling the truth is.

Remember Milton:

And though all the windes of doctrin were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falshood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter.

a reply to: darkbake

WHO decides what is "real"???

originally posted by: darkbake
I think it might be entirely legal for a browser like Chrome to label certain sites as "fake news" sites. Or there are extensions people can buy that alert them when they are on a "fake news" site. I think Facebook has the right to shut down fake news stories, as well.

There are actually people out there generating fake news, possibly to gain political advantage, I haven't researched their motives yet, although I know one person does it for advertising revenue. But this is clearly wrong. The only reasons someone would support this are if they benefited by the fake news or believed the fake news.

Of course, I see a distinction between those who generate fake news and places like ATS. But ATS already has a policy of denying ignorance, and they already have a policy of putting fake news in the hoax bin. These policies should be enforced.

If they are sued and proven to have labeled it fake falsely, they could be liable to a large financial judgment.

Removing lies and fake information would shrink the size of the internet by a large percentage.

With all the lies, falsehoods, misrepresentation, disinformation, prevarication, trumpery, fraudulence, blarney and outright BS, spewed by the ATS members; we shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone or anything, media, politicians etc....

a reply to: DBCowboy

As opposed to and concerned about fake news as I am and have been, I agree where it comes to politicians/the government. The onus is on us (sounds like a slogan!) to be better consumers of information.

I believe our defamation laws adequately address issues of libel beyond that.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: darkbake

WHO decides what is "real"???

We do.

If it doesn't here's Hillary breaking another law that pleabes have to abide by.

One mans lies are another mans truths. And vice versa. You have to come to the sickening realization that some people just WANT to hear lies. They want to hear things that tickle their ears, but not necessarily feeds their minds.

How does this apply to reporters quoting 'unnamed' or 'anonymous' sources?
We have only the journalist's word that the source is real.

Would Woodward and Bernstein have been accused of reporting 'Fake News' by relying on 'Deep Throat'?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Lies while in theory are always bad, are not always so.

We are not perfect beings and know everything. Uncertainty presents the possibility and high probability of mistakes in the form of facts stated that are in fact not entirely or at all true. These are essentially lies.

Forgiveness is a virtue. So...

originally posted by: OneGoal
a reply to: DBCowboy


Forgiveness is a virtue. So...

Maybe so... but to keep forgiving lies from the same mouth you just forgave... is being a flaming idiot.

Novel idea for you folks:

If you don't like lies, then believe the truth!

Do you really need some law to protect you from critical thinking?