redneckgaijin: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.'

Date: 2010-08-20 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2010-08-20 09:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Profile

redneckgaijin: (Default)
redneckgaijin

August 2018

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
121314 15161718
192021 22232425
262728 293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2025 10:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios