# Does Freedom Of Speech Require Freedom Of Lies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506 "2008-02-21T03:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/1 "2008-02-21T03:49:22Z")
So I saw [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EggJyKHPyl0&feature=related) on YouTube. User ‘LiberalViewer’ presents a few examples of contemporary media criticism of speech overwhelmingly held by the general population as false and extremely offensive, and then suggests that this criticism is poorly targeted because it implies that such speech should be suppressed- which would violate the right of freedom-of-speech. He makes a good argument, but it felt wrong in my gut ([more nerve endings than your brain, remember](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A&feature=related)) and a moment later my brain caught up and I realized why: Repeated public assertion of a statement creates a perception that the statement must have some merit, otherwise it would no longer be asserted. Obviously, I’m missing some well-hashed debate ground here, since libel and slander aren’t protected by freedom of speech, and the American truth-in-advertising act wasn’t struck down as violating our first amendment. On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that flat-earth conventions be banned, and the ACLU keeps defending hate speech on the grounds that the basis used to censor it could be used to censor anything else. I agree with the ACLU’s positions more often than not- although not much more often- but I’ve never considered the freedom-of-hate-speech issue from the perspective of suppressing misleading presentation of unquestionably false statements. So, what’s the Straight Dope on this? Does freedom of speech really require that we allow people to publicly lie with impunity? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/2 "2008-02-21T04:05:41Z")
Do you consider erroneous opinions to be lies? You might consider these statements “false facts.” Someone might say, for example, that it is a fact that the earth was created six thousand years ago. For many people, that is not a lie. They believe that they are speaking the truth. We certainly shouldn’t censor their speech. And since we can’t look into each mind to know the motives, we shouldn’t censor those who deliberately lie. There are exceptions when laws and professional standards are broken. And liars have to face the consequences of their actions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/3 "2008-02-21T04:40:26Z")
Sometimes the consequences will follow you around, demanding food and Cartoon Channel. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/4 "2008-02-21T04:46:08Z")
[QUOTE=Strain of Thought] So, what’s the Straight Dope on this? Does freedom of speech really require that we allow people to publicly lie with impunity? [/QUOTE] Who says they’re lying? I’m not just being quarrelsome; that’s a very important question. The Holocaust deniers are expressing a belief. They have no first-hand knowledge of what did or didn’t occur in Europe in the 1940’s, and odds are you don’t either. For most of us, it’s a matter of belief. As for “hate speech,” that’s almost all opinions. Opinions usually can’t be shoehorned into categories like “truth” and “lie.” No matter how offensive some viewpoints might be, do you really want to give the government the authority to criminalize beliefs and opinions? What if the Thought Judge (or committee, or whoever) decides that some belief that _you_ hold dear is “obviously wrong,” and deeply offends someone-or-other, and you’ll go to jail if you ever express it again. Basically, criminalizing beliefs and opinions, even highly offensive ones, opens the door to a very scary place. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/5 "2008-02-21T04:49:31Z")
[QUOTE=Strain of Thought] Does freedom of speech really require that we allow people to publicly lie with impunity? [/QUOTE] If impunity means that they must not be prevented from telling lies, the answer is yes - because any sort of Govt. Bureau for the Suppression of Lies quickly leads to big trouble. But freedom of speech never properly means freedom from being held accountable for what you say. So liars can (and should) be exposed, ridiculed and forced to confront the consequences of their statements. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/6 "2008-02-21T04:52:46Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] Basically, criminalizing beliefs and opinions, even highly offensive ones, opens the door to a very scary place. [/QUOTE] Isn’t this the very definition of hate crimes right now? ---
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/7 "2008-02-21T05:48:36Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] Who says they’re lying? I’m not just being quarrelsome; that’s a very important question. The Holocaust deniers are expressing a belief. They have no first-hand knowledge of what did or didn’t occur in Europe in the 1940’s, and odds are you don’t either. For most of us, it’s a matter of belief. As for “hate speech,” that’s almost all opinions. Opinions usually can’t be shoehorned into categories like “truth” and “lie.” No matter how offensive some viewpoints might be, do you really want to give the government the authority to criminalize beliefs and opinions? What if the Thought Judge (or committee, or whoever) decides that some belief that _you_ hold dear is “obviously wrong,” and deeply offends someone-or-other, and you’ll go to jail if you ever express it again. Basically, criminalizing beliefs and opinions, even highly offensive ones, opens the door to a very scary place. [/QUOTE] I’m less interested in very offensive beliefs and opinions than in very false ones. I suppose what I need to begin with is a very clear definition of an opinion, as opposed to a mere falsely stated fact. While the more complex the position, the more difficult to adhere to strict concepts of truthfulness, I’m of the opinion (whatever, exactly, that is) that The Holocaust Of The Jews is something that either did or did not happen. I don’t think I can be of the opinion that the Holocaust happened; I think I can _believe_ that it happened, as all facts true and false are held in the mind as beliefs, but my personal definition of _opinion_ restricts it to situations in which there is uncertainty in either the facts or the meanings of the other words being used. What unsettles me about **LiberalViewer** ’s argument (which I do not claim to have an effective counter-argument to) is that it ignores the subtext of legitimacy that unchecked false statements can acquire, whether they be intentional lies or merely mistaken beliefs. Back when the tobacco industry was still claiming cigarette smoking was harmless, would an industry executive’s statement that he believed his company’s product was harmless be protected by free speech? One man’s belief stated to others is not an advertisement, but by virtue of his position in the company any statement he makes sounds authoritative. What does American law have to say about that? Similarly, when enough people with impressive titles get together and discuss how the Holocaust didn’t happen, the subtext is that if all these people can freely meet and discuss the issue then it must have some legitimacy. If the problem is that the meeting _shouldn’t create such a subtext_, then there is a very serious question of how and why people are influenced in such ways and whether and how that can be combated. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/8 "2008-02-21T07:01:35Z")
[QUOTE=Duckster] Isn’t this the very definition of hate crimes right now? [/QUOTE] No it is not. It is not a crime to believe or be of the opinion that some group is bad/wrong/icky/won’t get into heaven/should be put to death. It is a crime to commit an act of violence against someone and it may be an additional crime to do so if you were motivated by something like the victim’s religion or skin color, because that can be seen as an attempt to terrorize an entire group of people, not just the person who got beat. I know that we’ve had a couple of threads on hate crime laws recently, they should be easy to search for. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/9 "2008-02-21T09:27:28Z")
I believe that in most cases, allowing liars to lie, then be exposed, debunked, ridiculed and shamed, is the best thing to do. (Qualifying the phrase ‘most cases’: I believe _allowing them to do that_ is what we should always try to do - it’s just that only in _most cases_ does it work out for the best). Freedom of speech means people can talk utter bollocks, but not with impunity, because the same freedom of speech allows you to respond - publicly identifying their statements as utter bollocks. ---
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/10 "2008-02-21T11:42:00Z")
I was following the white rabbit on Wikipedia when I stumbled upon the article for the [Big Lie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie), in which **Adolf Hitler** is quoted from _Mein Kampf_ and mentions exactly what I’m distressed by: > [@Adolf Hitler](#): > > It required the whole bottomless falsehood of the Jews and their Marxist fighting organization to lay the blame for the collapse on that very man who alone, with superhuman energy and will power, tried to prevent the catastrophe he foresaw and save the nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War they took the weapon of moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland. In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and **they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true**. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick-a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of. (emphasis mine) **Mangetout** , your position seems to imply that Free Speech requires vociferous denial of falsehoods by the general public, but I certainly don’t get the feeling that that’s encouraged here in America. If anything public protesting is perceived as obnoxious. Look at [the ineffectiveness of anti-smoking ads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheTruth.com#Questionable_effectiveness_of_anti-smoking_ads). Is the attitude toward public debate significantly different in other countries with Free Speech? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/11 "2008-02-21T11:51:07Z")
[QUOTE=Strain of Thought] **Mangetout** , your position seems to imply that Free Speech requires vociferous denial of falsehoods by the general public, but I certainly don’t get the feeling that that’s encouraged here in America. If anything public protesting is perceived as obnoxious. Look at [the ineffectiveness of anti-smoking ads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheTruth.com#Questionable_effectiveness_of_anti-smoking_ads). [/QUOTE] Not _requires_ - _permits_. I guess you could apply market dynamics to it - if enough people care that something is wrong, they’ll usually do something about it. And not just the general public - if figures in the media can say the wrong stuff, then other figures in the media can correct them. Obviously that’s all a bit simplistic a view, but what’s the alternative? - it’s difficult to see how you could every have an imposed system of ‘_good_ free speech only’, without the risk of fostering development a 1984-style Ministry Of Truth. Let people air their ridiculous or incorrect views, and let public scorn and derision show it for what it really is. Locking things away doesn’t stop them happening - it only makes people ignorant of them - in a way, it’s _good_ that the holocaust deniers get to speak, because the thinking world can thus be alerted to them. ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/12 "2008-02-22T17:59:17Z")
It may seem like a good idea until you realize that there exists Someone who will get to decide what the Truth is. Similarly, I don’t trust the opinions of the ignorant, racist, creationist voting public, but I’d distrust those in charge of weeding them from the polls even more. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/13 "2008-02-22T18:11:55Z")
[QUOTE=Strain of Thought] Does freedom of speech really require that we allow people to publicly lie with impunity? [/QUOTE] As you noted, people are not allowed to lie with impunity, and in some cases they’re not even allowed to tell the truth (for example, when National Security is an issue). Prior restraint is also allowed with regard to statements that are an “incitement to violence” or “fighting words,” regardless of the perceived truth of those statements. That said, yes, if you allow free speech, you have to allow lying. Once somebody seizes the right to decide what the truth is and the power to punish people who aren’t telling the truth according to him, what do you think will happen to free speech? ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-freedom-of-speech-require-freedom-of-lies/438506/14 "2008-02-22T20:28:46Z")
On the subject of allowing bullshit, nonsense, and lies to be published, Justice Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”