I considerably liked participating in this Federalist Culture webinar, which has just been posted here is the summary:
What can the authorities do to counter “disinformation” or other statements that it believes to be fake? The Supreme Court docket famously protected some phony defamatory statements in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and prolonged that keeping, in United States v. Alvarez, that the Initially Modification prevented the governing administration from punishing a speaker from falsely saying to have received navy honors. But other wrong statements, this kind of as fraud and perjury, could be punished, and a short while ago the dilemma of the government’s power to restrict false speech has assumed additional prominence.
In response to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021 and President Trump’s statements that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington Condition proposed a law punishing phony speech that was most likely to lead to violence. In other places controversies surrounding the fact of COVID-related details have arisen and the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Safety had prepared to produce a board to counter disinformation. Amid no cost-speech outcries, the proposal was established apart, but the Administration stays concentrated on combating disinformation. This method will aspect panelists with contrasting sights of the government’s authority in this subject and regardless of whether attempts to limit bogus speech represent a danger to Very first Modification values.
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Legislation Team Inc.
Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington College Regulation School
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Legislation, UCLA Faculty of Regulation
Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Guidance Commission