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

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.