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

[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?