虚假信息与第一修正案:对公众的欺诈

Wes Henricksen
{"title":"虚假信息与第一修正案:对公众的欺诈","authors":"Wes Henricksen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3860211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If one deceives another in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the victim, it is fraud, a crime and a tort. However, if one deceives a great number of people in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the public, it is generally neither a crime nor a tort. It is often legal to mislead the public for profit. As a result, harmful disinformation is disseminated constantly by politicians, the media, and corporations. This disinformation causes a multitude of harms to human health, life, and property, to the environment, and to democratic institutions and systems. Because of the emergence and growth of the internet, email, and social media, disinformation spreads faster and is, in many measures, more problematic today than it has ever been. And it is getting worse. Disinformation cannot, in general, be stopped without infringing on fundamental First Amendment rights. If Congress or a state passed a law curtailing disinformation, or any broad category within it, such a content-based regulation would not survive a First Amendment challenge under strict scrutiny. Why? Because disinformation and other terms like it (e.g., fake news, lies, and misinformation) are broad and vague, and encompasses both protected and unprotected speech. This Article argues that some of the most harmful disinformation, which results in widespread damage, should be deemed unprotected speech because it is fraudulent speech and not merely false speech. Harmful disinformation that amounts to “fraud on the public” is distinct from (and worse than) other kinds of disinformation. The Article sets forth elements that must be met to qualify as fraud on the public. Conduct that qualifies as fraud on the public, rather than merely spreading disinformation, should be deemed either to fit within the fraud exception to the First Amendment, or to have its own carve-out from First Amendment protections. This argument is, in some ways, a radical one; the fraud exception to the First Amendment normally applies only to behavior satisfying the elements of civil or criminal deceit, or one of the other long-established categories of fraudulent speech, such as securities fraud or false advertising. However, because fraud on the public is carried out in the same manner as fraud on the individual, and because the harm it causes to individuals, society, and the environment is as bad or worse than fraud on the individual, fraud on the public, like fraud, runs counter to the very aims of the free speech provision of the First Amendment. As a result, fraud on the public should be deemed unprotected fraudulent speech. Failure to do this will result in the continued growth and spread of the most harmful disinformation, further damaging public health and the environment, poisoning political discourse, and generating further attacks on democracy.","PeriodicalId":171535,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","volume":"37 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disinformation and the First Amendment: Fraud on the Public\",\"authors\":\"Wes Henricksen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3860211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If one deceives another in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the victim, it is fraud, a crime and a tort. However, if one deceives a great number of people in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the public, it is generally neither a crime nor a tort. It is often legal to mislead the public for profit. As a result, harmful disinformation is disseminated constantly by politicians, the media, and corporations. This disinformation causes a multitude of harms to human health, life, and property, to the environment, and to democratic institutions and systems. Because of the emergence and growth of the internet, email, and social media, disinformation spreads faster and is, in many measures, more problematic today than it has ever been. And it is getting worse. Disinformation cannot, in general, be stopped without infringing on fundamental First Amendment rights. If Congress or a state passed a law curtailing disinformation, or any broad category within it, such a content-based regulation would not survive a First Amendment challenge under strict scrutiny. Why? Because disinformation and other terms like it (e.g., fake news, lies, and misinformation) are broad and vague, and encompasses both protected and unprotected speech. This Article argues that some of the most harmful disinformation, which results in widespread damage, should be deemed unprotected speech because it is fraudulent speech and not merely false speech. Harmful disinformation that amounts to “fraud on the public” is distinct from (and worse than) other kinds of disinformation. The Article sets forth elements that must be met to qualify as fraud on the public. Conduct that qualifies as fraud on the public, rather than merely spreading disinformation, should be deemed either to fit within the fraud exception to the First Amendment, or to have its own carve-out from First Amendment protections. This argument is, in some ways, a radical one; the fraud exception to the First Amendment normally applies only to behavior satisfying the elements of civil or criminal deceit, or one of the other long-established categories of fraudulent speech, such as securities fraud or false advertising. However, because fraud on the public is carried out in the same manner as fraud on the individual, and because the harm it causes to individuals, society, and the environment is as bad or worse than fraud on the individual, fraud on the public, like fraud, runs counter to the very aims of the free speech provision of the First Amendment. As a result, fraud on the public should be deemed unprotected fraudulent speech. Failure to do this will result in the continued growth and spread of the most harmful disinformation, further damaging public health and the environment, poisoning political discourse, and generating further attacks on democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":171535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"37 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果欺骗他人的方式使欺诈者获利而损害了受害者,这就是欺诈,犯罪和侵权行为。然而,如果一个人以一种使欺骗者获利而损害公众的方式欺骗了许多人,那么它通常既不是犯罪也不是侵权行为。为了利益而误导公众往往是合法的。因此,有害的虚假信息不断被政客、媒体和企业传播。这种虚假信息对人类健康、生命和财产、环境以及民主机构和制度造成了诸多危害。由于互联网、电子邮件和社交媒体的出现和发展,虚假信息传播得更快,在许多方面比以往任何时候都更有问题。而且情况正在变得更糟。一般来说,不侵犯宪法第一修正案的基本权利,就无法制止虚假信息。如果国会或一个州通过了一项限制虚假信息的法律,或其中的任何广泛类别,这种基于内容的监管将无法在严格审查下经受住第一修正案的挑战。为什么?因为虚假信息和其他类似的术语(如假新闻、谎言和错误信息)是广泛而模糊的,包括受保护和不受保护的言论。本文认为,一些造成广泛损害的最有害的虚假信息应被视为不受保护的言论,因为它是欺诈性言论,而不仅仅是虚假言论。有害的虚假信息相当于“对公众的欺诈”,与其他类型的虚假信息截然不同(而且比其他类型的虚假信息更糟糕)。该条规定了必须满足的构成对公众欺诈的要素。对公众的欺诈行为,而不仅仅是传播虚假信息,应该被视为符合第一修正案的欺诈例外,或者从第一修正案的保护中分离出来。在某种程度上,这种观点是激进的;第一修正案的欺诈例外通常只适用于满足民事或刑事欺诈要素的行为,或其他长期确立的欺诈言论类别之一,如证券欺诈或虚假广告。然而,由于对公众的欺诈与对个人的欺诈以同样的方式进行,并且由于它对个人、社会和环境造成的伤害与对个人的欺诈一样糟糕,甚至更糟,因此,对公众的欺诈就像欺诈一样,与第一修正案中言论自由条款的目标背道而驰。因此,对公众的欺诈行为应被视为不受保护的欺诈言论。如果不这样做,将导致最有害的虚假信息继续增长和传播,进一步损害公众健康和环境,毒害政治言论,并引发对民主的进一步攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disinformation and the First Amendment: Fraud on the Public
If one deceives another in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the victim, it is fraud, a crime and a tort. However, if one deceives a great number of people in a manner that profits the deceiver and harms the public, it is generally neither a crime nor a tort. It is often legal to mislead the public for profit. As a result, harmful disinformation is disseminated constantly by politicians, the media, and corporations. This disinformation causes a multitude of harms to human health, life, and property, to the environment, and to democratic institutions and systems. Because of the emergence and growth of the internet, email, and social media, disinformation spreads faster and is, in many measures, more problematic today than it has ever been. And it is getting worse. Disinformation cannot, in general, be stopped without infringing on fundamental First Amendment rights. If Congress or a state passed a law curtailing disinformation, or any broad category within it, such a content-based regulation would not survive a First Amendment challenge under strict scrutiny. Why? Because disinformation and other terms like it (e.g., fake news, lies, and misinformation) are broad and vague, and encompasses both protected and unprotected speech. This Article argues that some of the most harmful disinformation, which results in widespread damage, should be deemed unprotected speech because it is fraudulent speech and not merely false speech. Harmful disinformation that amounts to “fraud on the public” is distinct from (and worse than) other kinds of disinformation. The Article sets forth elements that must be met to qualify as fraud on the public. Conduct that qualifies as fraud on the public, rather than merely spreading disinformation, should be deemed either to fit within the fraud exception to the First Amendment, or to have its own carve-out from First Amendment protections. This argument is, in some ways, a radical one; the fraud exception to the First Amendment normally applies only to behavior satisfying the elements of civil or criminal deceit, or one of the other long-established categories of fraudulent speech, such as securities fraud or false advertising. However, because fraud on the public is carried out in the same manner as fraud on the individual, and because the harm it causes to individuals, society, and the environment is as bad or worse than fraud on the individual, fraud on the public, like fraud, runs counter to the very aims of the free speech provision of the First Amendment. As a result, fraud on the public should be deemed unprotected fraudulent speech. Failure to do this will result in the continued growth and spread of the most harmful disinformation, further damaging public health and the environment, poisoning political discourse, and generating further attacks on democracy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信