Tech trade groups file lawsuit against Florida's new social media law

Just because there is no law against lying per se, does not make lying a a protected form of speech
There is no law against lying because such a law would be un-Constitutional; lying is protected speech in that the First Amendment prohibits government from engaging in that sort of excess and overreach.

But that has nothing to do with social media.

In the context of private social media, lying is in no manner ‘protected.’
I understand that SOME lies fall under the category of protected speech. They're generally referred to as bare lies which cause no harm. But that is certainly not the case for ALL lies and all liars.

In the SC case of The US v Alvarez, Alvarez ran afoul of the 2005 Stolen Valor Act when he claimed to have been a Marine who was wounded in battle and received the Medal of Honor when, in reality, he had never even been in the military at all, let alone been wounded and awarded the MoH.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality consisting of himself, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that false statements are not, by the sole reason of their falsity, excluded from First Amendment protection.

Clearly, politicians lie through their teeth all the time, and they're never prosecuted or sued for it.

However, there are a whole series of lies that are not protected by the 1st Amendment. I simply take exception to bripat stating that lying is protected speech as if ALL lies are protected speech which would mean that anyone could lie about anything, and there would be no way to hold liars accountable either criminally or civilly which is clearly not the case. The problem with people who take that attitude is that they often don't know where the line is and, because of that, they tend to cross it without even thinking about it...or caring about it, either.

Justice Breyer noted that valid laws that make false statements illegal usually require “proof of specific harm to identifiable victims” or only prohibit lies that “are particularly likely to produce harm.”

I simply contend that lies told on social media websites which reach millions of people carries an implied credibility by being broadcast on the website in the first place as opposed to being said in a conversation. Having said that, I can certainly understand that companies like Facebook don't want their platforms to be used to promote falsehoods that very well could cause harm.
 

Forum List

Back
Top