Are lies, propaganda, and misinformation protected by the First Amendment?

[kentuck]

Did "Hanoi Hannah" and "Tokyo Rose" have the right to come on American media and spout their disinformation?

If they had worked for FOX News, would it have been OK?

There are some that argue that "free speech" is almost absolute. The only place they draw the line is with defamation and pornography. Is that really the only limits to "free speech"?


We are familiar with the Supreme Court ruling about the KKK having the right to march and protest in Skokie, Illinois. But how do we distinguish between the "right to march and protest" and the act of inciting revolt and insurrection? Is that also protected speech?

Does "free speech" take precedent over the right of the people to be safe and secure in their homes?

What lines should be drawn with free speech and the First Amendment?

Should FOX News be permitted to continue the lies and misinformation that are so damaging and destructive to our country and society?

[NewHendoLib]

1. I think total free speech would be fine if humans weren't so prone to buy into lies

that well funded propaganda will grab such a large percentage of the voting public is the real issue - WE are the real issue.

There is a great book I just read - If Nietzche was a Narwhal - in which the author lays out that as soon as our species started using language, we learned how to lie. Therein is the issue. It is hardwired into us.

[kentuck]

2. When is the line crossed?

Do we wait until there are deadly consequences and then act? Or do we never act at all?

[NewHendoLib]

3. we are living that experiment right now - I guess we always have been, but we are at one of the

flashpoints. Personally, I would like to see what Faux does as illegal - but the counter argument would be that it is only my personal opinion.

I see what Faux does as stochastic terrorism. What TFG did re COVID made him a murderer.

But I am a liberal Democrat, so of course i would see it that way.

[kentuck]

4. The solution must be to give every American a firearm with one bullet...

...and to let everyone play Russian Roulette?

[NewHendoLib]

5. I've lost the plot, my friend - little of what we see makes sense to me any longer

I just noted you've been here on DU since 2001 - wow and congrats! - me 2004. Think of what we've seen happening in the last 20 years. I have more questions than answers these days - one of the reasons I've totally stopped watching any news at all. For me, the answers are on the hiking trails or in my gardens!

[bucolic_frolic]

6. There is free speech, there is also public nuisance

I would argue that lies that harm society or individuals are a question mark. We do limit other forms of speech. Contractually. Legally. Hate crimes have a speech aspect behind them. "Fire!" in a crowded theater - is that still illegal? Provocateurs have restrictions, surely, if only after the fact. I think that's that the Big Lie is ... provocation for monetary and political gain. Couldn't be any clearer if they were throwing Molotov cocktails.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. It's only ten o'clock, and already I want to start drinking. NT

[onenote]

8. Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason, served 6 years in prison, and given a presidential pardon

There are those that would argue that many opponents of the war in Vietnam, including Jane Fonda, were as guilty of spreading propaganda about the war as Hanoi Hannah.

Two examples that show the perils of criminalizing speech. What you and I think of as propaganda and destructive is not shared universally.

So the standard needs to be narrow, and the Supreme Court has done so in the 1969 Brandenburg case which overturned the 1927 Whitney decision. The latter case had upheld the conviction of Whitney for her membership and involvement with the Communist Party, holding that Whitney could be punished for speech advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government via violent methods. In Brandenburg the Court held that it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminally punish a speaker for an abstract advocacy of illegal conduct. Only speech that is intended to, and likely to incite imminent lawless action could be punished. In subsequent cases, such as Hess v Indiana, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, and Stewart v. McCoy, the Court has reaffirmed the Brandenburg standard. You may disagree with the outcome in some or all of these cases, but the Court has been pretty clear in interpreting the First Amendment broadly.

[Ocelot II]

9. Haven't we had this discussion before? The answer is yes, lies, propaganda

and misinformation are protected unless they are also defamatory. The First Amendment protects all speech with the narrow exceptions of obscenity and child pornography (Miller v. Ohio), incitement causing the immediate threat of imminent lawless action, leading to “imminent disorder" (Brandenburg v. Ohio, Hess v. Indiana), and defamation (N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Welch). Even hate speech is protected, with some time, place and manner restrictions (Snyder v. Phelps). The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not the suppression of speech.

[emulatorloo]

11. +++

It is pretty straightforward.

[treestar]

14. +1

and with defamation, a plaintiff has to prove civil damages. It is not against the criminal law. You can do it if you were wiling to pay any judgment.

[Firestorm49]

10. If the massacre of children at Sandy Hook didn't

scare the majority us into the reality of gun violence, I wouldn’t count on much in the way of propaganda reform.

We are in the early days of attempted fascism. Our only solution will take time and perseverance to conquer. Then, add lying propaganda to the agenda of reforms that we so desperately need.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Treason and fraud are not protected by the first amendment

But the government has to prove both in a court of law, after the speech has occurred, and a defendant cannot hide behind the first amendment as a defense.

The first amendment focuses on “prior restraint” by the government- that is, government intervention to restrain speech before the speech happens.

After the speech has occurred, then the government can prosecute if the evidence shows a law has been broken.

[treestar]

13. Yes. The only answer is more speech

As long as other have free speech to oppose all that, we all have freedom of speech. Otherwise you get into just what is propaganda and misinformation and lies. Our own side will be prone to the same analysis with the other side in power.

[tulipsandroses]

15. There ought to be clever ways that a DA can pursue criminal charges

IMO, this is more about fraud than free speech. The folks promoting the lies are profiting from the lies. That is the goal. Tucker, et al were freaking out about stock prices dropping and ratings loss. If you are lying for the purpose of financial gain, there ought to be criminal penalties.

At the very least, they should be stripped of protections that are provided to news agencies. They should have to announce that they are not a news agency and what the hosts speak on are their opinions.
I don’t see how you can get away with calling yourself news and purposely lie.
Recently heard someone say they should have to rebrand as Fox Entertainment Network. Stop the charade that this is news.
They hardly report on actual news, so why are they deserving of protection that News agencies receive.
I strongly believe in freedom of the press. Good, bad and indifferent. That’s why I am not bothered by posts here that cite sources that are not always favorable to Democrats.

What Fox is doing though, is far from news. It’s lies and conspiracies that they know to be lies for the purpose of profit. That should not be protected speech.

[Dr. Strange]

16. Yes. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow have argued this in court--both successfully.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

[onenote]

17. What was argued successfully was that Carlson and Maddow are stating opinion, not fact.

[Dr. Strange]

22. Correct.

And that's how you get around it. I wasn't lying--I was just stating my opinion.

[Prairie_Seagull]

18. What ever happened to personal honor?

It is rarely, if ever, discussed nowadays. Honor was the thing that forced people to try and tell the truth.
Make laws against deuling not force the idea of honor into the ether.

[onenote]

19. As students of American political history know, lying has been part of politics from the start.

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/yellow-journalism-the-fake-news-of-the-19th-century

[Prairie_Seagull]

20. It can easily be both. I am not simple enough to think that either is the correct idea all by itself

Less lying is still less. I can tell you that I have no idea about how one effects the other. I do believe it's enough to make a difference.

Thank you for the link. Good stuff. Do I believe that an idea will have the desired effect on political lies. Probably not. However for the people in general I still have hope.

[Peacetrain]

21. Well Kentuck.. I tell you, if someone says something that causes them to harm themselves or others

I think we have an issue there. Ex, a person knows a gun is fully loaded, lies about it.. and gives it to someone who pulls the trigger and harms themself.. I think person #1 would be in trouble for doing that.