From: Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:46:56 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 12/25/2024 1:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> NoBody wrote:
>>>> I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
>>>> the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
>>>> discovery is for.
>>> We already agreed on that.
>> Glad to hear we agree!
>
> Except narrow exceptions of fraud or defamation, lying is protected
> speech. That is why FOX, ONAN, RNC, etc, are still business.
Not quite.
In the controlling case, Alvarez v. United States, the Court held that
the federal law which criminalized lying about receiving a military
honor was unconstitutional. But, only four justices said lying is
protected speech except in fraud, defamation and perjury.
Two other justices, in the controlling opinion, said each case must be
decided on its own merits based on whether the risk to truthful speech
outweighs the harm done by false speech. They held the law was too broad
because it categorically proscribed lying about the honor. In response,
Congress modified the law to say you can't lie about a military honor
with the purpose of receiving a material gain. That law remains in effect.
But your point about FOX and all other news outlets is valid. All nine
justices agreed that in matters of politics, lying is protected speech.