I a lot loved collaborating on this Federalist Society webinar, which has simply been posted; this is the abstract:
What can the federal government do to counter “disinformation” or different statements that it believes to be false? The Supreme Court docket famously protected some false defamatory statements in New York Instances Co. v. Sullivan and prolonged that holding, in United States v. Alvarez, that the First Modification prevented the federal government from punishing a speaker from falsely claiming to have gained army honors. But different false statements, reminiscent of fraud and perjury, could also be punished, and just lately the query of the federal government’s energy to restrict false speech has assumed extra prominence.
In response to the Capitol assault of January 6, 2021 and President Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington State proposed a legislation punishing false speech that was prone to result in violence. Elsewhere controversies surrounding the reality of COVID-related info have arisen and the Biden Administration’s Division of Homeland Safety had deliberate to create a board to counter disinformation. Amid free-speech outcries, the proposal was put aside, however the Administration stays centered on combating disinformation. This program will characteristic panelists with contrasting views of the federal government’s authority on this area and whether or not efforts to restrict false speech characterize a menace to First Modification values.
Harmeet Okay. Dhillon, Founding Companion, Dhillon Regulation Group Inc.
Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Regulation, The George Washington College Regulation College
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Regulation, UCLA College of Regulation
Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Help Fee