Free Speech

[Chriliman]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

 

[Occams Barber]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Free speech should not include the right to spread falsehood however this limitation should be subject to two considerations:

1. Is the statement demonstrably false? The onus here is on the prosecution to prove falsehood
2. Will the statement cause significant harm? I accept that 'significant harm' may be a subjective consideration and needs a lot more work to be adequately defined

This test is more or less based on the 'Yelling Fire!! in a crowded theatre' type scenario. If you accept that this should be illegal then why not outlaw other speech acts which cause harm?

Punishment should start with small fines and ramp up to imprisonment based on the level of harm and the spread of misinformation.

OB

 

[Chriliman]

Free speech should not include the right to spread falsehood however this limitation should be subject to two considerations:

1. Is the statement demonstrably false? The onus here is on the prosecution to prove falsehood
2. Will the statement cause significant harm? I accept that 'significant harm' may be a subjective consideration and needs a lot more work to be adequately defined

This test is more or less based on the 'Yelling Fire!! in a crowded theatre' type scenario. If you accept that this should be illegal then why not outlaw other speech acts which cause harm?

Punishment should start with small fines and ramp up to imprisonment based on the level of harm and the spread of misinformation.

OB

Does this reflect the laws currently in place?

 

[zippy2006]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

It's an interesting question, but also very complicated. What sort of falsehood do you have in mind? Intentional falsehood? A falsehood of negligence (where one ought to have known the truth and can be held culpable for not doing so)?

In Catholicism it is sometimes called "the right to be wrong." Generally speaking, in the United States I think free speech does include the right to be wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

It's an interesting question, but also very complicated. What sort of falsehood do you have in mind? Intentional falsehood? A falsehood of negligence (where one ought to have known the truth and can be held culpable for not doing so).

In Catholicism it is sometimes called "the right to be wrong." Generally speaking in the U.S. I think free speech does include the right to be wrong.

I’m more talking about intentional falsehood that may benefit yourself in someway, which I don’t think we should be free to do.

Spreading falsehood ignorantly is easier to forgive and I think the realization that you’re wrong is punishment enough.

 

[Occams Barber]

Does this reflect the laws currently in place?

Not that I'm aware of although it might qualify as criminal negligence under some jurisdictions. It could also reflect some hate speech law.

It also has a civil counterpart under libel/slander laws where a spoken or written untruth can be shown to be damaging to an individual or an organisation.

OB

 

[pgp_protector]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Yes.

The Primary problem with banning "Falsehood" is who gets to define "Falsehood"

Some areas where you would get the most complaints even from this site.
Is the Earth App 6000-10000 years old or 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Did Humans Arise via Evolution or Creationism?

Right there with just those two things you would have problems if you were to punish those telling "Falsehoods"

 

[Occams Barber]

I’m more talking about intentional falsehood that may benefit yourself in someway, which I don’t think we should be free to do.

Spreading falsehood ignorantly is easier to forgive and I think the realization that you’re wrong is punishment enough.

I thought about intentionality but left it out until I had more time to think about it. I'm currently of the opinion that spreading falsehood believing it to be true should still qualify as a crime.

I have two reasons;

1. Claiming 'I didn't know' sounds like an easy way out
2. There should be an obligation to fact check where harm is likely

Having said this I think that unintentionality, if demonstrated, should be a mitigating factor.

OB

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

I would most likely say yes to simply because of the arbitrary definition of what many people would consider to be "falsehood", and this especially goes with things like Fake News etc. so much of that is simply people having a different opinion and interpretation of events than the official one which may actually be extremely biased etc.


People do not have the right to maliciously slander someone, or do other kind of intentional lieing as far as fraud, defamation etc. goes but these kind of issues are actually dealt with largely by our law as far as civil litigation and sometimes even criminal prosecution goes. The only real hole in the law is with public figures or people who become famous who have malicious things said about them who it is later is found out to be wrong. I actually thought the One America News suit against Rachel Maddow was quite interesting. She said at various times the organization were "literally" a Russian propaganda service, that made "pure propaganda" , just based on them sometimes working for Russian news services. It was recognized that what she said was not accurate etc. strangely enough when it came to damages the court ruled that her show should be considered purely opinion, where hyperbole is tolerated basically a "for entertainment purposes only" attitude.


Judge dismisses One America News defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow

 

[Strathos]

It depends.

Saying "buy this magic water, it will cure your cancer" is illegal. It's false advertising.

Saying "I was abducted and probed by aliens" is legal, because it's just a tall tale.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes.

The Primary problem with banning "Falsehood" is who gets to define "Falsehood"

Some areas where you would get the most complaints even from this site.
Is the Earth App 6000-10000 years old or 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Did Humans Arise via Evolution or Creationism?

Right there with just those two things you would have problems if you were to punish those telling "Falsehoods"

If we use your examples I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where a court might decide whether or not a crime had been committed based on a religious interpretation of the facts.

In the case of your examples I expect a court would look for scientific proof as the common standard but may allow mitigation based on religious considerations associated with unintentionality.

Although your examples can be harmful to society, it's difficult to visualise a clear case for 'significant harm' arising from literal biblical interpretation.
OB

 

[hedrick]

Generally freedom of speech includes the right be wrong. No freedom is absolute. There are situations where speech can seriously harm someone, but those are unusual.

The internet is creating a challenge, however. We have people (e.g. Russian agents) who are pushing lies in order to create bad feelings between groups of Americans. I don't know how to draw lines, but I think we are probably going to have to do so.

Of course it would be best if people didn't fall for those lies, but that seems to be too much to ask.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Saying "buy this magic water, it will cure your cancer" is illegal. It's false advertising.

I recently saw an add where the gloves/socks they claim reduced pain could probably be proven not to. Yet they continue to advertise.

It has to be illegal as you say, but maybe it's to expensive to litigate.

 

[Occams Barber]

Generally freedom of speech includes the right be wrong. No freedom is absolute. There are situations where speech can seriously harm someone, but those are unusual.

The internet is creating a challenge, however. We have people (e.g. Russian agents) who are pushing lies in order to create bad feelings between groups of Americans. I don't know how to draw lines, but I think we are probably going to have to do so.

Of course it would be best if people didn't fall for those lies, but that seems to be too much to ask.

If this question had a come up a couple of years ago I may have had a different opinion. As it stands currently, outright lying seems to be a growing practice. I think it's far greater than Russian agents. There are those who are wish to create chaos for political ends and those who do it for the hell of it. Either way the practice seems to be growing, as recognised by Twitter and Facebook.

When minor annoying actions reach the point where they begin to threaten societal stability or place people at risk, the law may need to be applied. It's not unusual for new laws to be established when certain damaging behaviours reach a threshold of tolerance.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

The internet is creating a challenge, however. We have people (e.g. Russian agents) who are pushing lies in order to create bad feelings between groups of Americans. I don't know how to draw lines, but I think we are probably going to have to do so.

I think this is a different issue. Russian interference isn't only problematic if it is based on lies. For example, the Russian "Blacktivist" movement that sought to divide the U.S. on the basis of race is arguably based on what many would consider a true, if exaggerated, claim.

That problem seems to me twofold: 1) Applying behavioral psychology to mass advertising, and 2) Foreign interference. Two things that really need talking about.

 

[com7fy8]

I’m more talking about intentional falsehood that may benefit yourself in someway, which I don’t think we should be free to do.

I agree. And I understand that the original intent of the United States Constitution was to have freedom of speech so people are free to tell the truth.

So, deliberate falsehood would be wrong, even if it is not prosecuted.

Spreading falsehood ignorantly is easier to forgive and I think the realization that you’re wrong is punishment enough.

There might be not so clear items. For one example, ones say masks are bad, while others say they are good. What I get is they can be bad, depending on the situation, or good in another situation. So, it might not be good to get heavy-handed with ones saying either idea.

Also, we likely would have a problem with guaranteeing there is some correct interpretation of the Bible, in a number of cases. So, you could be wise and considerate to listen to everyone's input, but then get clear in spite of differences. And freedom might mean you do not have to pick one side or the other > both could be wrong or incomplete!

Freedom in such cases can be good for making sure no one has power to get dictatorial just because he or she is convinced of something.

And in case a dishonest one comes up with some make-believe item, in order to use people in his or her scheme, freedom of speech can be very helpful so we can say no to his or her demands and deceit. We do not have to prove the person is being tricky, but we are free to say no.

 

[Sparagmos]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

Yes it includes the right to spread falsehood. The only limits would be situations where the speech could directly cause real harm, or when under oath. And keep in mind free speech only protects you from criminal action from the government.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Slander, libel, 'shouting fire', medical claims... there are a few narrowly drawn areas where freedom of speech is not absolute, generally involving injury to others.

 

[ChocoRabbit]

I think fraud (like selling a faulty product or giving out bad medical advice) should be a crime, and I'm pretty sure it already is.

The rest though, I'm not so sure about. Anyone can claim a falsehood. If some of the people who dominate the conservation surrounding gender on Twitter were in power, they could make stating biological facts (like women have XX chromosome) as falsehoods.

 

[Strathos]

I think fraud (like selling a faulty product or giving out bad medical advice) should be a crime, and I'm pretty sure it already is.

The rest though, I'm not so sure about. Anyone can claim a falsehood. If some of the people who dominate the conservation surrounding gender on Twitter were in power, they could make stating biological facts (like women have XX chromosome) as falsehoods.

Well technically some don't.

XY gonadal dysgenesis - Wikipedia
Triple X syndrome - Wikipedia
Turner syndrome - Wikipedia
Tetrasomy X - Wikipedia