top of page
Writer's pictureJoanne Jacobs

If the government decides what's 'misinformation,' free speech is dead


The First Amendment is a "major block" to combating misinformation about climate change, said John Kerry, the former secretary of state, at a World Economic Forum panel. "Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to . . . hammer it out of existence," he said. "So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."


Hammer "misinformation" out of existence? Win enough votes to amend the Constitution?


Hillary Clinton, another former secretary of state, wants "guardrails" on free speech online. In an CNN interview, she called for removing social media platforms' immunity from prosecution for the content they carry. “If the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter, X, or Instagram or Tiktok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” she told host Michael Smerconish. 


Who is the "we" that deserves "total control?" Again, it's not clear.



In an 2022 interview, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a former social studies teacher, said “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” During the vice-presidential debate, he added that the Supreme Court had ruled "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."


The First Amendment doesn't protect threats of "unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals," writes Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The First Amendment protects misinformation, disinformation and hate speech. And you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater, if there's a fire, but not if you're "falsely shouting fire" to create a panic.


Defining “hate speech” is "incredibly subjective," he points out. The label is "little more than an excuse to go after opinions we don’t like." The Supreme Court has made it clear that speech is protected regardless of its hatefulness.


In addition"the vast majority of lies and falsehoods are protected speech, which is a very good thing," writes Lukianoff. "If the government is given the power to determine what is and is not misinformation or disinformation, free speech is dead."


He adds, "You need only to look at some of the bad calls made during the COVID-19 pandemic to see the potentially disastrous drawbacks" of letting an omniscient government decide what people can "see, read and hear."


As for "shouting fire in a crowded theater," he writes, the phrase comes from a Supreme Court opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes that upheld the imprisonment of two people who argued that military conscription was wrong. "The Supreme Court abandoned the logic of that case in 1925," Lukianoff writes, "and rightly seeing that this line of thinking was being used to justify clearly unconstitutional censorship, outright overruled it in 1969."


Here's FIRE's video.



129 views8 comments

Recent Posts

See All

8 Comments


m_t_anderson
Oct 07

Who's going to protect me from misinformation from John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Tim Walz?

Like

superdestroyer
Oct 06

But in the age of social media and the almost infinite number of online trolls, the public sector is using increasing resources to respond to items that are blatant misinformation, lies, or propaganda.

Like
rob
Oct 08
Replying to

If you're on the scale of a small town, then a guy standing on the corner is a big part of the picture.

Like

rob
Oct 06

"Misinformation" is a stupid concept. If I say, "it's raining outside". You might say, "Oh, I wouldn't call that raining, it's just barely drizzling." Who is right?

Like
bottom of page