20

I know that most forms of lying are protected by the First Amendment, but there are some narrow exceptions.

Does the First Amendment protect deliberately publicizing the incorrect date of an election, the eligibility requirements to vote, or other procedural information about an election in an attempt to dissuade certain people from voting?

Improve this question
7
  • 3
    Who is publicizing the incorrect date? An election official, a person with no particular authority, someone else?
    – phoog
    Commented Aug 15 at 9:18
  • 1
    The exceptions are not particularly narrow. The First Amendment protects the "press" and "assembly". In other words the right to share information and ideas. It provides very little protection to provably false statements on which others are likely to rely to their determinent. Merchants can't claim a right to misrepresent their wares to buyers. Practical jokers can't claim a right to shout Fire! in crowds for laughs.
    – David42
    Commented Aug 16 at 14:47
  • 3
    @David42 The First Amendment also protects "freedom of speech." The exceptions are generally quite narrow. The "fire in a crowded theater" thing came from Schenck v. U.S., which was a particularly terrible WWI-era decision that was obviously unconstitutional and overturned more than half a century ago.
    – reirab
    Commented Aug 16 at 16:00
  • 2
    See the book press.jhu.edu/books/title/12911/liar-crowded-theater for an in-depth exploration of the contexts in which the First Amendment does, does not, should, and should not protect lies.
    – Very Tiny Brain
    Commented Aug 17 at 18:27
  • 1
    @reirab the fire in a theater thing was dicta. The fact that the decision was overturned has no bearing on the correctness of the dicta, which nobody seriously doubts.
    – phoog
    Commented Aug 18 at 21:00

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
45

See Minnestoa Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018):

the State may prohibit messages intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures

See also People v. Burkman, ___ N.W. 3d ___ (Mich. June 13, 2024). The Supreme Court of Michigan found a criminal provision constitutional because it caught only "intentionally false speech that is related to voting requirements or procedures and is made in an attempt to deter or influence an elector's vote."

A person has been convicted of conspiring to interfere with voting rights by spreading messages on social media that falsely alleged that people could vote for then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton via text message (Department of Justice, "Social Media Influencer Sentenced for Election Interference in 2016 Presidential Race").

Improve this answer
1
  • 5
    The answer probably should note that the quoted section from MVA v. Mansky is dicta from a footnote, not something that was actually being considered in the case at hand. As for the last paragraph, it appears that this conviction is currently under appeal precisely because the defendant (and a bunch of other people) consider it to be a violation of the First Amendment.
    – reirab
    Commented Aug 16 at 16:23
9

This seems to be something of an open legal question.

As Jen's answer correctly notes, Douglass Mackey was convicted late last year for posting memes claiming that people could vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election via text message. However, this case was appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it violates Mr. Mackey's First Amendment rights as well as on the grounds that the court that convicted him didn't have jurisdiction over the case anyway. While oral arguments for the appeal have happened, at least as far as I can tell, a decision does not seem to have been rendered yet.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .