Speaking Out Facts And Misinformation What The Constitution Says

Recently, there has been much news, and a fair amount of misinformation spread concerning what rights and responsibilities the three branches of the federal government have in carrying out their official duties, and whether... If you, like most of us of a certain age, studied civics in high school, you learned that the three branches of the federal government are reined in by a concept known as checks... But what powers are given to the three branches of government to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful? Our country runs on facts and upon laws. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land.

We are a constitutional republic. Every federal official, from the President to a Supreme Court Justice to a member of Congress, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. According to the U.S. Constitution, those checks and balances of power are: • Exclusive Congressional vote on bills, the budget, federal judges and executive branch officials, as well as the power of impeachment of officials in all three branches (Article I). Last updated 2 hours ago.

Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change. For centuries, the guiding philosophy for free speech has been the “marketplace of ideas” – a belief that in a free and open competition of thought, truth will ultimately prevail over falsehood. So what happens when that marketplace is no longer a level playing field? The digital age, with its social media platforms and powerful algorithms, has created an information ecosystem fundamentally different from anything the nation’s founders could have imagined. This new environment, driven by engagement rather than accuracy, has proven to be an astonishingly efficient engine for the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. This collision between America’s foundational legal principles of free speech and the unprecedented challenge of digital falsehoods raises critical questions.

What does the First Amendment truly protect? What are the tangible harms caused by misinformation? How do we balance free speech with the need to combat dangerous lies? [Summarized in 2000 words across 6 paragraphs; each summarization addresses both scientific and political aspects of balance of power in the Constitution regarding daily government and information control]: The Constitution establishes a balance of power between the federal government and the states, yet this scientific understanding has shifted over time to account for modern-day challenges. At its core, the Founding Fathers recognized the need to manage information and its implications for public trust in governance.

This rational foundation sets the stage for discussing how the Constitution ensures that modern-day issues, such as daily governments, are not unduly influenced by external institutions. In today’s context, the balance of power must be recalibrated to address contemporary challenges like misinformation, technological surveillance, and the growing importance of transparency in government functions. The constitutional safeguards for free expression on the web, for example, aim to protect citizens from the interference of state agencies while maintaining public trust in government and public officials. The constitutional prioritization of the federal government in balancing power and technological applicability reflects a shared historical commitment to restating its foundational principles without disrespect to the Founding Fathers. This political balance is not a one-size-fits-all approach but rather a dynamic one that adapts to current developments. The Constitution emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to protect civil liberties with the challenge of maintaining a government that can function effectively in the modern era.

For instance, the Founding Fathers distinguished between the conduct of the states and the executive branch, a distinction that remains relevant today in discussions about administrativeSeparation of powers. One of the most seminal shifts in constitutional jurisprudence occurred in 1964 with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.1 Footnote376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Times had published a paid advertisement by a civil rights organization criticizing the response of a Southern community to demonstrations led by Dr.

Martin Luther King, and containing several factual errors. The plaintiff, a city commissioner in charge of the police department, claimed that the advertisement had libeled him even though he was not referred to by name or title and even though several of... Unanimously, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff. To the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications, the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . .

. the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.” 2 Footnote 376 U.S. at 269. Justices Black, Douglas, and Goldberg, concurring, would have held libel laws per se unconstitutional. Id.

at 293, 297. “The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions . . . . [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic,...

at 269, 270. Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . . [unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.” 4 Footnote 376 U.S. at 271.

Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place... at 271–72, 278–79. Of course, the substantial truth of an utterance is ordinarily a defense to defamation. See Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 516 (1991).

Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny and “[c]riticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputation.” 6 Footnote 376... at 272–73. That neither factual error nor defamatory content could penetrate the protective circle of the First Amendment was the “lesson” to be drawn from the great debate over the Sedition Act of 1798, which the... at 273. Thus, it appears, the libel law under consideration failed the test of constitutionality because of its kinship with seditious libel, which violated the “central meaning of the First Amendment.” “The constitutional guarantees require, we...

at 279–80. The same standard applies for defamation contained in petitions to the government, the Court having rejected the argument that the petition clause requires absolute immunity. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985). In the wake of the Times ruling, the Court decided two cases involving the type of criminal libel statute upon which Justice Frankfurter had relied in analogy to uphold the group libel law in...

Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254–58 (1952). In neither case did the Court apply the concept of Times to void them altogether. Garrison v. Louisiana10 Footnote379 U.S. 64 (1964).

held that a statute that did not incorporate the Times rule of “actual malice” was invalid, while in Ashton v. Kentucky11 Footnote384 U.S. 195 (1966). a common-law definition of criminal libel as “any writing calculated to create disturbances of the peace, corrupt the public morals or lead to any act, which, when done, is indictable” was too vague to... The teaching of Times and the cases following it is that expression on matters of public interest is protected by the First Amendment. Within that area of protection is commentary about the public actions of individuals.

The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments. But, over the years, the Court has developed an increasingly complex set of standards governing who is protected to what degree with respect to which matters of public and private interest. Individuals to whom the Times rule applies presented one of the first issues for determination. At times, the Court has keyed it to the importance of the position held. “There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion.

Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. It is clear, therefore, that the ‘public official’ designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for... Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). But this focus seems to have become diffused and the concept of “public official” has appeared to take on overtones of anyone holding public elective or appointive office.13 FootnoteSee Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S.

People Also Search

• Speaking Out: Facts and Misinformation: What the Constitution says ...
• How Free Speech Laws Handle False Information | GovFacts
• False Speech and the First Amendment: Constitutional Limits on ...
• What the U.S. Constitution Says and Doesn't Say About Truth
• Human Rights 101: What is Freedom of Expression?
• Defamation and False Statements: Overview | U.S. Constitution Annotated ...
• Constitutional Free Speech Protection of Disinformation in Political ...
• Freedom of Speech Under the Constitution - Justia
• First Amendment - Brennan Center for Justice