Eleanor Finch
The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable. However, the short answer to why lies are constitutionally protected is that, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends. This includes false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like, at least in many contexts.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends | Outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech |
| The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable | The particular lines that it has drawn seem generally consistent with a comparative institutional approach to responding to lies |
| Bans on specific lies are content-based restrictions on speech | In order to preserve the freedom of expression the First Amendment defends, lies must be protected the same way as any other speech |
| Lies are constitutionally protected when said without "actual malice" | Even if the speaker knows the statements are false |
| This includes "false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like", at least "in many contexts" |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends
- The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable
- The Court's analysis recognised two critical points
- False statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like are protected
- The fitting remedy for lies is rebuttal
The First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends
The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable. However, it has drawn lines that seem generally consistent with a comparative institutional approach to responding to lies. For example, in United States v. Alvarez, the Court ruled that false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like are constitutionally protected in many contexts, even if the speaker knows the statements are false.
The Court's analysis has recognised two critical points: First, that bans on specific lies are content-based restrictions on speech. Second, that in order to preserve the freedom of expression the First Amendment defends, lies must be protected the same way as any other speech. This principle was expressed by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building.
The Slave Trade: Protected by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable
The short answer to why lies are constitutionally protected is that, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends. This principle was expressed by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building.
Some lies are constitutionally protected, not just when they are said without "actual malice", but even if the speaker knows the statements are false. This includes "false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like", at least "in many contexts". This was recognised in United States v. Alvarez, where Justice Breyer noted that "even in technical, philosophical, and scientific contexts, where (as Socrates' methods suggest) examination of a false statement (even if made deliberately to mislead) can promote a form of thought that ultimately helps realise the truth".
ISPs and the Constitution: What Protections Exist?
You may want to see also
The Court's analysis recognised two critical points
The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable. However, it has drawn lines that seem generally consistent with a comparative institutional approach to responding to lies. Government determination of which assertions are false and should be punished is always perilous. When institutions, such as scholars, the government as speaker, the media, or opposing election campaigns, are involved, there is a way to avoid the peril while still rebutting the lies.
The Court told us that some lies are constitutionally protected, not just when they are said without "actual malice", but even if the speaker knows the statements are false. This includes "false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like", at least "in many contexts".
Stand Your Ground: Constitutional Right or Legal Loophole?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
False statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like are protected
The Court has never precisely explained when lies are constitutionally protected and when they are punishable. However, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends, and so, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, lies are protected. This includes false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like.
In United States v. Alvarez, it was argued that even in technical, philosophical, and scientific contexts, the examination of a false statement can promote a form of thought that ultimately helps realise the truth. This is consistent with a comparative institutional approach to responding to lies. When institutions, such as scholars, the government, the media, or opposing election campaigns, are involved, rebuttal is a better alternative to government coercion.
Constitution's Protection: Discrimination Against Homosexuals
You may want to see also
The fitting remedy for lies is rebuttal
The short answer to why lies are constitutionally protected is that, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends. This principle was expressed beautifully by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building.
The Court’s analysis recognised two critical points: First, that bans on specific lies are content-based restrictions on speech. Second, that in order to preserve the freedom of expression the First Amendment defends, lies must be protected the same way as any other speech.
Some lies are constitutionally protected—not just when they are said without “actual malice,,” but even if the speaker knows the statements are false. This includes “false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like,,” at least “in many contexts.”
Data Privacy: Constitutional Protection for Expression?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, some lies are constitutionally protected, even if the speaker knows the statements are false.
Constitutionally protected lies include "false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like", at least "in many contexts".
The short answer is that, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends.
