An Op-Ed in today’s Washington Post. Like me, he’s against it on First Amendment grounds.
If the government can criminalize lies about medals, it can criminalize lies about other subjects.
Once we criminalize lies, someone must determine what is a lie and what is harmless embellishment.
After all, with the power to punish a lie comes the power to define the truth — a risky occupation for any government.
The First Amendment protects free speech, not just truthful speech. It exists to give a certain breathing room to citizens to avoid the chilling effect of the threat of prosecution. Free speech is its own disinfectant. It tends to expose lies and isolate liars. But it means that we often protect speech that has little value in its own right. We are really not protecting the right of Xavier Alvarez to tell lies. We are protecting the right of everyone to speak, even when they may be called liars.
This seems self-evident to me, but obviously not to everyone. It’s interesting to see the comments on Prof. Turley’s article — supporting the statute is seen as conservative, and its opponents are seen as liberals (and as is usual on the internet, are called names). Again, I thought that conservatives were supposed to favor reducing the amount of government intrusion in citizen’s lives. The exception seems to be for criminal sanctions — the most severe form of government intrusion — there they tend to favor more regulation, not less.