Proposed Constitutional Amendment (Yes, Another One)

[redneckgaijin]

The Constitutional protection of the individual right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press shall not extend to speech or printed material which is false, deceptive, or intentionally misleading.

Discuss?

EDIT: Already I don't like this particular formulation, because any and all works or performances of fiction would be susceptible to censorship under it.

Alternate (if less elegant) wording: The Constitutional protection of the individual right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press shall not extend to speech or printed material of a non-artistic, non-creative nature which is false, deceptive, or intentionally misleading.

Of course, the alternative gives Limbaugh, Beck and the like a loophole- they can call their propaganda broadcasts 'performance art.'

Comments

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

What we really need here is a reversal of the court decision that gave Faux News the right to broadcast things they KNOW are counterfactual under the heading of "news".

You could fix your first version by adding, "unless it is clearly labeled and marketed as being fictional". This still wouldn't prevent people from believing that The Blair Witch Project is a documentary, but I think it would adequately protect the rights of creators of fiction.

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

Thumbs down - every utterance becomes a cause for litigation on the pretext that it might be false.

The alternative wording is even less worthy in that it would invite the courts to decide what is art who is an artist and who is allowed to create. Not that they haven't done it already in the Boiled Angel/Mike Diana case, but this would justify that sort of thing.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

I have to concur. The Founding Fathers seemed to have had good reason for writing the First Amendment as such a wide blanket: speech that many might PREFER be false needs protection even more then the typical.

Would you really want Bush appointees to the Court deciding when the First applied, and when it didn't?

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I will not support any legal restrictions on free expression regardless of its content.

while we possibly could between us two

[andreas_schaefer]

agree on wanted, unwanted and discuss lists - with a small discuss list I think it would be very difficult to put into unambiguous law definitions of false, deceptive and misleading.
Practically everybody would agree that in school the kids should not be taught anything f., d. & m.. Getting people to agree what is so is difficult. So allowing all adults maximum freedom of speech is the best compromise.
We can live with the existence of Fred Phleps ( occasionally I do wish for an angry god prone to smiting with great noise ) but if we DO allow limiting the freedom of speech we enable the next BAD president to suppress every critique of his administration. And soon his critics will not be able to vote for an alternate choice.
I write this from Germany where some speech IS illegal. ( claiming that no or few Jews were killed in the concentration camps is one of those proscribed lies. ) If I saw to chane that law to allow more freedom of speech without ENCOURAGING the assholes who do spread this lie I would vote for liberalization.
Some free speech is disgusting and sick - but the alternative is worse.

---

There is a general legal problem : How to word definitions so that an average Joe can apply them. ( because whether judge or jury , rules ARE going to be interpreted by average [or below] guys ).

Thus "adult" has to be legally defined by calendar age and not by (more) sensible maturity which would need complex tests by specialists. [on the other hand if people had to be mature presumably all the American Idol contestants could not vote or buy drinks - nor half their audience ]

Both phrasings are at BEST good for the first line of a law : stating the intent. [ .... in Order to form a
more perfect Union, ....] The body of the law needs to be filled with applicable practical definitions. And instructions on how to measure
falsehood and deception, never mind intent. Proving intent is difficult. If conviction depends on proving intent it is going to be hard work for the prosecutor unless the accused has left a diary with his plans.

somebody help me of this soapbox!

An inch

[kelbob.livejournal.com]

If there is any room for interpretation in the First amendment then anyone may claim that anything they do not like is non-creative, non-artistic. If you leave any wiggle room then it will be shoved wide open and freedom of speech will be completely dead.
The first amendment is not to protect speech you agree with or what is popular, it is to protect all that is fringe and unpopular. It is better to live with the wacko's and kooks whichever side they are on than to lose our fundamental freedoms.

Re: An inch

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The problem is, we have people spreading lies and deceptions with the intent of DESTROYING those same fundamental freedoms.

And they've accomplished so much already.

Re: An inch

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

people spreading lies and deceptions with the intent of DESTROYING those same fundamental freedoms.

It has ever been thus, but now each liar has more victims. This also means the truth can travel farther and faster.

[scarfman]

I can't get behind the concept you're aiming for because it would be easily enough subject to abuse by those in power. There's enough of that and every sign that it's on the increase already.

[lordjobe.livejournal.com]

The Constitution fails at prohibiting anything. We tried that out once, and it was very bad.

All you can do is protect yourself and do your best to educate others when someone lies. That's the down side of a free society.