9 ms·

The First Amendment is about government suppression of speech. Furthermore, deliberate lies are (legally) not legitimate speech.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> Furthermore, deliberate lies are (legally) not legitimate speech. That is not correct: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-th... > Under U.S. law, many falsehoods—even some deliberate lies—receive the full protection of the First Amendment. That is true even though “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” as Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote for the Supreme Court in 1974. Nonetheless, the Court has often refused to allow government to penalize speakers for mistakes, sloppy falsehoods, and lies. Political lies are strongly protected; but even private lies sometimes are as well.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  That needs amending, IMO.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?
    - belltaco 7y ago
      See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example. The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?
      - makomk 7y ago
        The UK is infamous for its ruinous libel lawsuits against people who dare to say true things about the rich and powerful. It was so widely abused that the US ended up having to introduce a law blocking our libel suits fronm being enforced over there.
      - StreamBright 7y ago
        Other countries? Ok. - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive - https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil... - https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-speech-and-individual-rights-disappearing-hungary https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee... It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.
    - Jihakuz 7y ago
      Don't worry guys, we'll just us AI to decide what's true or not!
    - blackflame 7y ago
      Controversial Suggestion: People discern truth for themselves like they always have and will always continue to do. True and Trustworthy are two very different things when it comes to human instinct. Something that is true but not trustworthy due to lack of feedback may be wrong in the future. Furthermore something that proves to be trustworthy on some subjects might not be the same on others
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.
      - StreamBright 7y ago
        What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with? I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.
        throwaway_law 7y ago
        >Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.
  - tonmoy 7y ago
    Does it? What if the government decides the earth is the center of the universe and imprisons the scientist who has observable proof that it isn’t? What’s if the government decides “encryption with backdoor is unsafe” is a false statement and suppresses all speech that says otherwise?
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      Slippery slope arguments like this are stupid because a government determined to be a bad actor isn't going to let a constitution stop them. Russia has a constitution, heck, Soviet Russia did. The reality of having laws against broadcasting lies is that they will be applied sensibly if the rest of the system is sensible - and if it is not, you have worse problems.
      - Vaslo 7y ago
        I’m not sure that comparing Russia to the US in this instance is any less “stupid”.
        JulianMorrison 7y ago
        Russia past and present is an illustrative example of a government determined to be oppressive.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        The people who will have control of the system have no incentive to be sensible; they have incentives to do what the executive government tells them to do and situations get very political very quickly. Consider the IRS vs conservative groups under Obama (according to Republicans). The issue isn't a slippery slope as much as it is centralising power to a single point vulnerable to corruption & allowing politically charged decisions to be hidden behind opaque bureaucratic processes.
      - awayfromhomenow 7y ago
        Slippery slope arguments take into consideration the very human capacity to become accustomed to a certain boundary, and then seek to push beyond that boundary. For good or ill, look at the progression of rights leading to the current transgender/feminist argument over what constitutes a woman. 50 years ago that would not have even been a discussion. You would be hard-pressed to ever see a government give ground where once they have asserted authority. Only encroaching further into our rights.
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    That would be a big problem for religion and indeed science. Religion is largely based on faith so cannot be 'true' or 'false'. Science is based on theory. Scientists may disagree as to what is true.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SauciestGNU 7y ago
It would be more accurate to say that deliberate lies are sometimes not free speech as decided by the courts. These circumstances include false advertising, libel, and slander.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  Even in these cases, 1A does not allow the government to prevent such speech (that is, prior restraint). These are not criminal issues. If you engage in any of these practices you may be liable for civil judgments, but that's the extent of it. It's true that there are limitations on 1A. But these are very frequently misunderstood. For example, the bit about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is incorrect.
  - learc83 7y ago
    >Even in these cases, 1A does not allow the government to prevent such speech (that is, prior restraint). These are not criminal issues. If you engage in any of these practices you may be liable for civil judgments, but that's the extent of it. That's incorrect. There exist many statutes that criminalize certain commercial speech. And 15 states have criminal libel laws on the books. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that criminal liable laws generally violate the 1st amendment even though they have overturned many examples in the past. And there is no general prohibition against criminalizing speech that isn't protected by the first amendment such as fraudulent or illegal commercial speech.
ergothus 7y ago
> The First Amendment is about government suppression of speech It is exactly that, but that doesn't actually end the real conversation people are trying to have. Do we support the idea that the govt shouldn't restrict speech, but that we as society should? There are a lot of "chilling" effects seen in history. On other hand, TOTALLY unrestricted speech is a completely different ball of wax, complete with plenty of hairballs in there. There's the ever-present (yet valid) "what about child porn", but there's also a lot of the issues that are arising in recent years with explicitly false statements and representations designed to influence the average person. Sure, such statements can't survive enough research, but it's easy enough to make it hard to research, to create conventional wisdom that is just wrong. Society where we cannot trust "facts" cannot sustain - it will fracture into separate societies in which trust CAN be held. And on the gripping hand, we have those that argue for truly unrestricted speech in words, but actually just have confidence that their viewpoint will win out, not by virtue of reason and logic but by virtue of fear and hate. When I was young, I believed in absolute free speech. I'd quote Voltaire, I'd defend any attempt to allow communication, even that which made me uncomfortable, but I did it for noble reasons. A lot of my more liberal views came about because I supported the efforts of those that made me uncomfortable to express themselves. Nowadays, despite those personal growths, having seen how much we CAN'T handle truly free speech, I'm much more hesitant. Clearly excessive suppression of speech, be it from the govt or be it from society, is terrible. But now I'm horrified to see that truly restricted speech just empowers demagogues. It ends up not being truly free speech either, as it creates fear of reprisals that can't be proven. It promotes the name of speech while restricting the ideal. We need to discuss what our true objective is. We can't find the line yet, perhaps we never will, but perhaps we can narrow down the grey area a bit. But right now, we have the believers in unrestricted speech as a noble ideal, with users of unrestricted speech to restrict ideas hidden among them, arguing with those that are fine with the govt not restricting speech but wanting social protections, with a decently large group that is wondering if keeping the govt out fully and leaving it to social repercussions is perhaps flawed that also joins in. Saying "the first amendment only restricts the govt" is a fine statement about the current law. It doesn't address anyone's actual concerns though.

vonmoltke 7y ago

> Furthermore, deliberate lies are (legally) not legitimate speech. That is not correct: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-th... > Under U.S. law, many falsehoods—even some deliberate lies—receive the full protection of the First Amendment. That is true even though “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” as Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote for the Supreme Court in 1974. Nonetheless, the Court has often refused to allow government to penalize speakers for mistakes, sloppy falsehoods, and lies. Political lies are strongly protected; but even private lies sometimes are as well.

JulianMorrison 7y ago
That needs amending, IMO.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example. The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?
    - makomk 7y ago
      The UK is infamous for its ruinous libel lawsuits against people who dare to say true things about the rich and powerful. It was so widely abused that the US ended up having to introduce a law blocking our libel suits fronm being enforced over there.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      Other countries? Ok. - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive - https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil... - https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-speech-and-individual-rights-disappearing-hungary https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee... It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.
  - Jihakuz 7y ago
    Don't worry guys, we'll just us AI to decide what's true or not!
  - blackflame 7y ago
    Controversial Suggestion: People discern truth for themselves like they always have and will always continue to do. True and Trustworthy are two very different things when it comes to human instinct. Something that is true but not trustworthy due to lack of feedback may be wrong in the future. Furthermore something that proves to be trustworthy on some subjects might not be the same on others
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with? I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.
      - throwaway_law 7y ago
        >Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.
- tonmoy 7y ago
  Does it? What if the government decides the earth is the center of the universe and imprisons the scientist who has observable proof that it isn’t? What’s if the government decides “encryption with backdoor is unsafe” is a false statement and suppresses all speech that says otherwise?
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Slippery slope arguments like this are stupid because a government determined to be a bad actor isn't going to let a constitution stop them. Russia has a constitution, heck, Soviet Russia did. The reality of having laws against broadcasting lies is that they will be applied sensibly if the rest of the system is sensible - and if it is not, you have worse problems.
    - Vaslo 7y ago
      I’m not sure that comparing Russia to the US in this instance is any less “stupid”.
      - JulianMorrison 7y ago
        Russia past and present is an illustrative example of a government determined to be oppressive.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      The people who will have control of the system have no incentive to be sensible; they have incentives to do what the executive government tells them to do and situations get very political very quickly. Consider the IRS vs conservative groups under Obama (according to Republicans). The issue isn't a slippery slope as much as it is centralising power to a single point vulnerable to corruption & allowing politically charged decisions to be hidden behind opaque bureaucratic processes.
    - awayfromhomenow 7y ago
      Slippery slope arguments take into consideration the very human capacity to become accustomed to a certain boundary, and then seek to push beyond that boundary. For good or ill, look at the progression of rights leading to the current transgender/feminist argument over what constitutes a woman. 50 years ago that would not have even been a discussion. You would be hard-pressed to ever see a government give ground where once they have asserted authority. Only encroaching further into our rights.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  That would be a big problem for religion and indeed science. Religion is largely based on faith so cannot be 'true' or 'false'. Science is based on theory. Scientists may disagree as to what is true.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SauciestGNU 7y ago

It would be more accurate to say that deliberate lies are sometimes not free speech as decided by the courts. These circumstances include false advertising, libel, and slander.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
Even in these cases, 1A does not allow the government to prevent such speech (that is, prior restraint). These are not criminal issues. If you engage in any of these practices you may be liable for civil judgments, but that's the extent of it. It's true that there are limitations on 1A. But these are very frequently misunderstood. For example, the bit about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is incorrect.
- learc83 7y ago
  >Even in these cases, 1A does not allow the government to prevent such speech (that is, prior restraint). These are not criminal issues. If you engage in any of these practices you may be liable for civil judgments, but that's the extent of it. That's incorrect. There exist many statutes that criminalize certain commercial speech. And 15 states have criminal libel laws on the books. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that criminal liable laws generally violate the 1st amendment even though they have overturned many examples in the past. And there is no general prohibition against criminalizing speech that isn't protected by the first amendment such as fraudulent or illegal commercial speech.

ergothus 7y ago

> The First Amendment is about government suppression of speech It is exactly that, but that doesn't actually end the real conversation people are trying to have. Do we support the idea that the govt shouldn't restrict speech, but that we as society should? There are a lot of "chilling" effects seen in history. On other hand, TOTALLY unrestricted speech is a completely different ball of wax, complete with plenty of hairballs in there. There's the ever-present (yet valid) "what about child porn", but there's also a lot of the issues that are arising in recent years with explicitly false statements and representations designed to influence the average person. Sure, such statements can't survive enough research, but it's easy enough to make it hard to research, to create conventional wisdom that is just wrong. Society where we cannot trust "facts" cannot sustain - it will fracture into separate societies in which trust CAN be held. And on the gripping hand, we have those that argue for truly unrestricted speech in words, but actually just have confidence that their viewpoint will win out, not by virtue of reason and logic but by virtue of fear and hate. When I was young, I believed in absolute free speech. I'd quote Voltaire, I'd defend any attempt to allow communication, even that which made me uncomfortable, but I did it for noble reasons. A lot of my more liberal views came about because I supported the efforts of those that made me uncomfortable to express themselves. Nowadays, despite those personal growths, having seen how much we CAN'T handle truly free speech, I'm much more hesitant. Clearly excessive suppression of speech, be it from the govt or be it from society, is terrible. But now I'm horrified to see that truly restricted speech just empowers demagogues. It ends up not being truly free speech either, as it creates fear of reprisals that can't be proven. It promotes the name of speech while restricting the ideal. We need to discuss what our true objective is. We can't find the line yet, perhaps we never will, but perhaps we can narrow down the grey area a bit. But right now, we have the believers in unrestricted speech as a noble ideal, with users of unrestricted speech to restrict ideas hidden among them, arguing with those that are fine with the govt not restricting speech but wanting social protections, with a decently large group that is wondering if keeping the govt out fully and leaving it to social repercussions is perhaps flawed that also joins in. Saying "the first amendment only restricts the govt" is a fine statement about the current law. It doesn't address anyone's actual concerns though.