3 ms·
> deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I
by eyelidlessness 4y ago
> deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech
IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).
- scott_s 4y agoPublishing falsehoods about other people is not always protected speech. (Whether the other people are considered “public” or “private” changes the standards for deciding if the speech is protected.)
- ncallaway 4y agoWhile you’re right, that damages are an important factor, it’s worth noting that these don’t have to be strictly limited to direct monetary damages. For example, Jones was defaulted on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury’s compensatory damages were heavily weighted to IIED. So the damages can be abstract in some sense. But yes, generally defamation requires both material false statements of fact, and damages to a specific party.