undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandsoitis2y ago0 comments

A good starting point for understanding First Amendment constraints on government power to regulate deception is the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration of "common ground" in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.:

Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues.

You can read more about Deception and the First Amendment in this UCLA Law Review article: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_...

0 comments

auggierose2y ago

Of course the problem is that „fact“ is ill-defined. I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.

renlo2y ago

> I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.

For censoring speech, we have before us two options:

Option A is to ban "mistruths", and to go down the philosophical pursuit of determining what is "fact" and what is fiction, which will change based on milieu, sentiment, those in power, etc., and will be argued endlessly. Then we need to get into "unintended mistruths" vs "intentional mistruths", etc.

Option B is to allow most speech and to only focus on tortious fictions (libel/slander).

I think most sane people would choose Option B. And yes, Iran will disagree with the "facts" of the American populace, as I assume a German will disagree as well :)

bumby2y ago

To the point of a lot of this discussion, isn't Option A already in operation for most commercial purposes?

Contract law often gets into what is a statement of "material fact" vs. what is a statement of opinion. For example, a company can be sued for a statement like "contains 100% beef" and not for "delicious beef flavor" if the item in question has no beef in it. These torts are different from libel or slander, but they are often upheld in court. Misrepresentations can also be classified into honest mistakes or knowingly committing fraud. I think "most sane people" would argue the ability to sue over false claims of material fact are important commercial regulations.

auggierose2y ago

You can express it however you like, and say "tortious fiction" for false. Doesn't change that in the end, somebody has to decide what is true and false, and this will always be a matter of opinion. So option A and B are not really different. I am sure Germans would also agree that "most speech" is allowed.

renlo2y ago

By "tortious fiction" I meant that there's an injured party, hence libel and slander being mentioned. I.e, one can say "mistruths" as long as they don't slander another person and cause them measurable harm.

Option A is eager evaluation. Option B is lazy

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

auggierose2y ago

Of course the problem is that „fact“ is ill-defined. I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.

renlo2y ago

> I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.

For censoring speech, we have before us two options:

Option B is to allow most speech and to only focus on tortious fictions (libel/slander).

I think most sane people would choose Option B. And yes, Iran will disagree with the "facts" of the American populace, as I assume a German will disagree as well :)

bumby2y ago

To the point of a lot of this discussion, isn't Option A already in operation for most commercial purposes?

auggierose2y ago

renlo2y ago

Option A is eager evaluation. Option B is lazy

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse