2 ms·

Personally, I'm hoping his proposal to jail the funders of climate change denial for reckless endangerment catches on and becomes popular.

• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  You don't see any potential First Amendment problems with that? Or, you don't see any problems with a presidential candidate who advocates stomping all over the First Amendment?
  • jfengel 3y ago
    The Supreme Court said that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc. So it's not necessarily a First Amendment problem. It's not clear how the Supreme Court would actually take it, but that's a matter for five Court members to decide; I have zero input into that. It is probably a problem under how most people think of the First Amendment, and how they would want the First Amendment to be thought of. Most Americans probably want deliberate falsehoods to be protected rather than putting the government in charge of adjudicating every argument, especially given how vague that Gertz decision is and the lack of common law infrastructure supporting it. But I wouldn't automatically assume that the Constitution forbids it, either. What Americans want doesn't really figure into it.