# Can the (US) government legally require you to lie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743 "2013-09-13T03:15:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/1 "2013-09-13T03:15:59Z")
[This article](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch) by Cory Doctorow proposes that people can subvert the gag orders that accompany National Security Letters by regularly announcing that they have received no such orders. When they do receive a national security letter, they simply shut up, and people who have been watching will know about the gag order. He claims that “in US jurisprudence, compelling someone to speak a lie is generally more fraught with constitutional issues than compelled silence about the truth”. I would like to believe that I could not be legally compelled to lie, but I have a hard time believing a judge would allow this relatively transparent dodge. So- is Doctorow right? Can a dead-man switch foil the gag order by turning an act of commission into an act of omission? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/2 "2013-09-13T13:30:17Z")
The 1st Amendment provides a security of one’s expressive conduct (mostly) including freedom of speech, and with that the right to be SILENT is included, for your example, so NO, the govt. can not make you lie. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/3 "2013-09-13T13:41:40Z")
For things like a website - with a page saying they have received no national security letters - or signs in a library - I think the letter would be accompanied by an order not to remove or change the sign. If they were actually asked the question in a press conference or something - I think they’d have a better chance. But I think putting up a sign and then removing it - we’ll that is constructively giving notice that you were served with a letter. After a few people were charged with that - I’m guessing you’d see less people trying this trick. I’m thinking something like this has probably happened before in another context, but having trouble coming up with an analogous situation. ---
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/4 "2013-09-13T14:24:05Z")
> [@DataX](#): > > For things like a website - with a page saying they have received no national security letters - or signs in a library - I think the letter would be accompanied by an order not to remove or change the sign. Doctorow extends that idea to a switch that requires periodic action- a statement on your part that reaffirms the lack of a gag order. Without the affirmation (which would not be automatic) it would publish the fact that you had stopped affirming. I suspect that a person could be compelled to “lie” to the automatic system, but I agree that it would be trickier to compel a response to a more spontaneous question. It is a little out of date, but [this WaPo piece](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html) claims > [@](#): > > When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie. but I also know that it’s been 6 years since then with at least a few relevant legal battles and changes to the PATRIOT Act. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/5 "2013-09-13T14:45:41Z")
One thing I remember reading about was librarians or libraries who might receive a National Security Letter asking what you had been reading. Supposedly the library would send you a mostly generic “just to remind you, in case we receive a National Security Letter, we couldn’t tell you”, but the letter would be oddly personalized (e.g. name and address handwritten, manual signature, regular postage stamp as opposed to institutional metered mail) so that you could “read between the lines” and realize that they specifically sent this to _you_, not everyone. If the government raised a concern, the library could have plausible deniability in that the letter _could_ have been the result of a direct inquiry to a librarian. “Uhh, I don’t see it in the files here, but sometimes citizens write inquiry letters to us and a librarian responds with a personal letter.” ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/6 "2013-09-13T20:14:17Z")
> [@nolonger\_lurking](#): > > Doctorow extends that idea to a switch that requires periodic action- a statement on your part that reaffirms the lack of a gag order. Without the affirmation (which would not be automatic) it would publish the fact that you had stopped affirming. I suspect that a person could be compelled to “lie” to the automatic system, but I agree that it would be trickier to compel a response to a more spontaneous question. You simply have to purchase a Google or similar ad or buying space on a billboard saying you have received no gag order. Could the government compel me to keep purchasing such an ad? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/7 "2013-09-13T20:36:11Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > One thing I remember reading about was librarians or libraries who might receive a National Security Letter asking what you had been reading. Supposedly the library would send you a mostly generic “just to remind you, in case we receive a National Security Letter, we couldn’t tell you”, but the letter would be oddly personalized (e.g. name and address handwritten, manual signature, regular postage stamp as opposed to institutional metered mail) so that you could “read between the lines” and realize that they specifically sent this to _you_, not everyone. If the government raised a concern, the library could have plausible deniability in that the letter _could_ have been the result of a direct inquiry to a librarian. “Uhh, I don’t see it in the files here, but sometimes citizens write inquiry letters to us and a librarian responds with a personal letter.” Our library system in Minneapolis responded to this by instituting a policy that they did not keep any information on what books patrons checked out (except for the ones currently out). Every night, the completely erase all the records on books that have been returned. Thast protects the privacy of patrons, even from goons in our own government. And it turned out to save the library system money – a greatly reduced volume of data for the backup system. ---
**Author:** ![brad\_d](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@brad\_d](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brad_d)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/8 "2013-09-13T20:48:19Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Our library system in Minneapolis responded to this by instituting a policy that they did not keep any information on what books patrons checked out (except for the ones currently out). Every night, the completely erase all the records on books that have been returned. The Long Beach (California) library system does something similar, although a patron may “opt in” and they’ll start recording your checkout history from that point. The default, though, is definitely “off”. From the [Library FAQ](http://www.lbpl.org/library_catalog/new_system_faqs.asp#466): > [@](#): > > Please note: The default for library accounts is for the reading history to be off. You must opt in to activate your reading history. Your reading history is private and will only build from the point you opt in. You may delete specific records from your reading history by selecting the checkbox next to the item and clicking the Delete Marked Item button. If you change your mind later, you can always opt out and delete all items from your reading history. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/9 "2013-09-13T22:30:07Z")
The public Library in Traverse City, Michigan, put up a sign saying, approximately, “Our borrowers’ records have not been examined by any government security agencies. Watch this space.” The idea being that if the sign disappears, the NSA has been there. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-government-legally-require-you-to-lie/668743/10 "2013-09-15T00:56:55Z")
I don’t think that any of these schemes would hold up in court. If the feds have been there, you can’t tell anyone implicitly or explicitly, and you must make sure you don’t do that. Just because you have purposefully set up a pre-existing scheme, with full knowledge of how NSA warrants work, doesn’t get you off the hook by you calling it being “forced to lie.” Nobody forced you to put up the sign or set up the dead man’s switch at the outset. That was your choice, now you must do what you have to keep the federal secret.