Traditionally, false claims were understood to lie outside the realm of the US First Amendment protection. The 2012 US Supreme Court judgement 'United States v. Alvarez' however struck down the Stolen Valor Act 2005–which made it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals–and by doing so upheld a First amendment right which allows you to lie in some cases. This paper looks at the impact of such a constitutionalisation of false speech in a post Alvarez world within the context of social media.
Highlights:
- The availability and the anonymity that social media offers has led to a more cavalier attitude towards the truth. As a result, social media is filled with false speech which has far reaching implications.
- The paper argues that it is only a matter of time before those who use social media to spread false stories will be prosecuted in the United States. When this happens, a First Amendment challenge would be inevitable given the current law.
- False reports about emergencies etc. have the potential to cause a lot of public alarm and unrest. The government therefore has an interest in curbing the spread of misinformation. This would require changing the current problematically broad laws which impose liabilities on false news to be more restrictive in its judgements.