Is Lying Freedom Of Speech?

Franc Mittelo

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
4,022
Reaction score
1
If I just make up lies based on misunderstood facts from shoddy research papers, and I am charismatic enough to convince Bitter Beta Nerds that I am the most logical person on Earth, should I be protected with "Freedom of Speech"?
 
It depends.

Categorically, defamation, libel, and slander are all categories that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

However, to fit into that category, the words have to be deemed to have been known to be fully false and intent to defame must also be proven. Your hypothetical would be protected by the First Amendment, primarily on the "marketplace of ideas" rationale: that scrutinizing consumers and fellow researchers would tear it up and everyone would be better for it in the end.
 
It depends.

Categorically, defamation, libel, and slander are all categories that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

However, to fit into that category, the words have to be deemed to have been known to be fully false and intent to defame must also be proven.
This is the answer.
 
So, there are no boundaries to Freedom of Speech? Is perjury freedom of speech?

Let me back track, what is your definition of freedom of speech and should there be any consequences (at any level of society) for somebody engaging in freedom of speech?
 
It depends.

Categorically, defamation, libel, and slander are all categories that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

However, to fit into that category, the words have to be deemed to have been known to be fully false and intent to defame must also be proven. Your hypothetical would be protected by the First Amendment, primarily on the "marketplace of ideas" rationale: that scrutinizing consumers and fellow researchers would tear it up and everyone would be better for it in the end.
So, freedom of speech is not absolute, but up to the interpretation of the ruling power.
 
So, freedom of speech is not absolute, but up to the interpretation of the ruling power.

Yup.

Other than lying, also fighting words, incitement, and obscenity all form caveats into the protection.
 
If I just make up lies based on misunderstood facts from shoddy research papers, and I am charismatic enough to convince Bitter Beta Nerds that I am the most logical person on Earth, should I be protected with "Freedom of Speech"?

not only that, you'll even be paid to do it
 
If I just make up lies based on misunderstood facts from shoddy research papers, and I am charismatic enough to convince Bitter Beta Nerds that I am the most logical person on Earth, should I be protected with "Freedom of Speech"?
Sure. You can say what you want. If people choose not to research it, thats their problem.

Obviously there are laws that can be broken by lying but thats a different question.
 
It depends.

Categorically, defamation, libel, and slander are all categories that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

However, to fit into that category, the words have to be deemed to have been known to be fully false and intent to defame must also be proven. Your hypothetical would be protected by the First Amendment, primarily on the "marketplace of ideas" rationale: that scrutinizing consumers and fellow researchers would tear it up and everyone would be better for it in the end.

This is correct.

Personally, on a theoretical basis. I'd argue no.

The spirit of freedom of speech is to protect honest discourse from bring suppressed by power. Lying is antithetical to this spirit as lying is, by definition, an attempt to end honest discourse. When somebody lies they are attempting to subvert truth, suppress or stop honest discourse and rewrite reality according to thier own desires.

Note; I'm not that interested in arguments regarding perspectivsm and the nature of truth, I'm arguing more as a heuristic than an absolute.
 
If I just make up lies based on misunderstood facts from shoddy research papers, and I am charismatic enough to convince Bitter Beta Nerds that I am the most logical person on Earth, should I be protected with "Freedom of Speech"?
Hi, Ben. I think your sister is pretty hot.
 
This is correct.

Personally, on a theoretical basis. I'd argue no.

The spirit of freedom of speech is to protect honest discourse from bring suppressed by power. Lying is antithetical to this spirit as lying is, by definition, an attempt to end honest discourse. When somebody lies they are attempting to subvert truth, suppress or stop honest discourse and rewrite reality according to thier own desires.

Note; I'm not that interested in arguments regarding perspectivsm and the nature of truth, I'm arguing more as a heuristic than an absolute.

Yep. In principle, freedom of speech is the freedom to tell the truth to the best of your ability. Foundational principle of liberalism. Lying is just something that has to be tolerated in most cases for practical reasons (though lying that causes direct identifiable material harm isn't even tolerated).
 
This is correct.

Personally, on a theoretical basis. I'd argue no.

The spirit of freedom of speech is to protect honest discourse from bring suppressed by power. Lying is antithetical to this spirit as lying is, by definition, an attempt to end honest discourse. When somebody lies they are attempting to subvert truth, suppress or stop honest discourse and rewrite reality according to thier own desires.

Note; I'm not that interested in arguments regarding perspectivsm and the nature of truth, I'm arguing more as a heuristic than an absolute.

I think the incidental suppression argument cuts into your position, though, in that it discourages spontaneous input into the market of thought and, in part, only grants full protection to people intelligent enough to themselves maintain a strong boundary between truths and non-truths.
 
I've always found it interesting that it's illegal to lie to or mislead law enforcement. I thought that was why we had to take oaths in court, not during questioning.
 
Truth in politics in a healthy society is much like deciding between having waffles or pancakes for breakfast.

A practical system of government will generally function and provide contentment for most of the population whether closer to a liberal democracy or technocracy.

A lot of extremists will shout to the contrary, but most of those who have lived have not been obsessed with political nuance.

A Western democratic system whether moderately tilting left or right economically tends to be for the most part agreeable, even to most of the extremist or ideological fanatics lurking around the fringes of good government.

If you are feeding your people, have the trains running close enough to on time, and allow them a balance of liberty to pursue what they wish and equality to help those less able to compete, you are generally doing well.

Truth in politics tends to be found in acknowledging that all of these desires of men, duties of state, and directions of a republic should be listened to, and applied in a way that is fair to the most deserving, or most needing voices in different measures.
 
Back
Top