first amendment intro essay

First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices . It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government .

Learn more...

Primary tabs

Amendment i.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wex Resources

The establishment clause.

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005 )

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

Free Speech

Captive Audience

Prior Restraint

Absolute Privilege

Advocacy of Illegal Action

Fighting Words

Commercial Speech

Government Speech

Brandenburg Test

Schenk v. United States (1919)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Roth v. United States (1957)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Peaceful Assembly

Unlawful Assembly

Redress of Grievances

Research & Learn

Table of contents, first amendment overview essays.

The essays included in this collection give overviews of some of the most important areas of First Amendment law and scholarship. FIRE hopes that these essays explain the basics of First Amendment case law and jargon in a succinct, yet informative manner. This collection will expand on a regular basis, so please check back for more content.

Chilling Effect

The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. Chilling effects generally occur when a law is either too broad or too vague. Individuals steer far clear from the reaches of the law for fear of retaliation, prosecution, or punitive governmental action. Read more about the chilling effect .

COVID-19 Emergency Measures and the First Amendment

The pandemic caused by the pervasive spread of the virus known as COVID-19 has placed significant pressure on government officials to act quickly to try to save lives and slow the spread of the virus. Many officials have responded with significant restrictions in the form of emergency stay-at-home orders, executive orders closing all but “essential” businesses, and bans on public gatherings — often of groups of more than 10 people. . . No matter one’s political beliefs, this time has also placed significant strains on First Amendment freedoms. Read more about COVID-19 emergency measures and the First Amendment .

Defamation refers to false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. It encompasses both libel and slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. Read more about defamation .

Fighting Words

The First Amendment may protect profanity directed against another. Then again, such intemperate speech may fall into a narrow, traditionally unprotected category of expression known as “fighting words.” Read more about fighting words .

Freedom of the Press

Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the “freedom of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment. What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and internet content. Read more about freedom of the press .

K–12 Expression and the First Amendment

Public school students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Such rights must, however, be considered in the context of “the special characteristics of the school environment.” This means that while public school students possess free speech rights at school, school officials can regulate speech more as educators than governments can as sovereign. Read more about K–12 expression and the First Amendment .

Nude Dancing

The First Amendment protects much more than the spoken or printed word. It also protects various forms of symbolic speech and expressive conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled that the display of a red flag, the wearing of a black armband, the burning of the American flag and yes, even nude performance dancing are forms of expression that when restricted, require First Amendment review. Read more about nude dancing and the First Amendment.

Overbreadth

Overbreadth is a supremely important concept in First Amendment law and a key tool for constitutional litigators. A law is too broad—or overbroad—when it not only covers speech that ought to be proscribed but also penalizes speech that should be safeguarded. Read more about overbreadth . 

Secondary Effects Doctrine

The secondary effects doctrine allows government officials to treat patently content-based laws as content-neutral. The animating logic is that government officials are not suppressing speech because of its content but because of adverse side effects associated with the speech, such as increased crime or decreased property values. Read more about the secondary effects doctrine . 

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

Click here for our new feature on Presidents & the First Amendment

An examination of all 46 presidents and their engagement with the First Amendment

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Introduction

Few Americans would question the importance of the amendment to the Constitution that serves as the blueprint for personal liberty and the subject of this encyclopedia. However imperfectly Americans understand or honor the principles embodied in the core First Amendment freedoms, most would express pride in them — in worshiping or not worshiping according to the dictates of their conscience, expressing their opinions, assembling and associating with whomever they please, and petitioning the government. Hardly anyone would restrict any of these rights as they apply to themselves however much they might be tempted to constrain their application to others whose beliefs or behaviors they find distasteful or even abhorrent.

Americans generally share this heritage with their English forebears, whose roots in turn drew from Reformation theology and Greek and Roman ideals of democratic citizenship. Individuals who believed they were directly accountable to God wanted to be able to pursue spiritual truth wherever it led them, and some colonists, such as Roger Williams, challenged the religious establishments of some denominations brought to the New World. To influence government, citizens needed access to information. To participate in government, citizens needed to be able to express their opinions. The 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger in New York was reported throughout the colonies and indicated that while freedom of speech and press did not necessarily exempt colonial-era publishers from prosecution, the truth of their accusations was a defense, and defendants would be entitled to allow juries of their own peers to decide on such truth.

As American colonists approached independence, freedoms later embodied in the First Amendment assumed increasing importance. After ratification of the Constitution, citizens demanded that these rights be embodied in a bill of rights. Each subsequent period in U.S. history has added context to these guarantees, allowing contemporaries to draw valuable lessons not only from those times when such rights triumphed but also from times when they were jeopardized.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Freedom of Speech? A Lesson on Understanding the Protections and Limits of the First Amendment

By Staci Garber

• Sept. 12, 2018

This lesson plan was created in partnership with the National Constitution Center in advance of Constitution Day on Sept. 17. For information about a related cross-classroom “Constitutional Exchange,” see The Lauder Project .

While Americans generally agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the freedom of speech, there are disagreements over when, where, how and if speech should be ever limited or restricted.

This lesson plan encourages students to examine their own assumptions about what freedom of speech really means, as well as to deepen their understanding of the current accepted interpretation of speech rights under the First Amendment. The lesson should reinforce the robustness of the First Amendment protections of speech.

While teaching, you may want to use all or part of this related Student Opinion question, which asks: Why is freedom of speech an important right? When, if ever, can it be limited?

Using this handout (PDF), students will read the First Amendment provision that protects the freedom of speech and then interpret its meaning using 10 hypothetical situations. For example, here are two situations in the handout: a person burns an American flag in protest of government policies , and a public school student starts a website for students to say hateful things about other students .

In each situation, students use a five-point scale to determine the degree to which the government is able or unable to limit the speech in question. When students are finished considering the 10 scenarios, they should tally their scores at the bottom of the handout and then stand in a line — from least restrictive interpretation (lowest total score) to most restrictive interpretation (highest total score) of the First Amendment provision protecting speech — so they can see how their interpretation compares with that of their peers. You can then ask students to explain their reasoning.

Activity 1: Learn How Judges and Scholars Have Interpreted the First Amendment

The Warm Up should have established for students that there are different ways to interpret the First Amendment. Before moving on, it’s worth having the class discuss why they think the freedom of speech is an important right and why it is particularly important in a democracy, where people choose their political leaders. Some thoughts that may emerge in the conversation could include the ideas that citizens need to be able to speak freely in order to make effective electoral decisions, oversee government actions, participate in the policymaking process and hold politicians accountable.

Then, have students read and annotate an essay explaining the ways in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the freedom of speech. This essay, “ Freedom of Speech and of the Press ,” by the constitutional law scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh, is part of the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution . Students should answer the following questions (also available as a student handout ), making sure to provide evidence from the essay.

1. According to the essay, why is it important to protect speech, even if that speech is unpopular? 2. According to the essay, what kinds of actions are included in the term “speech” as it is found in the First Amendment? 3. How has the understanding of what is protected speech changed as technology has changed? 4. According to the essay, when is it acceptable under the First Amendment to limit or punish speech? 5. According to the essay, how has the Supreme Court addressed free speech during the 100 years since the end of World War I, and what is the status of free speech protections today?

When they’re finished, students should revisit the hypothetical situations in the Warm Up. If any answers have changed, students should mark their new answers with a check mark.

Activity 2: Apply Interpretations of the First Amendment to Current Issues

As a transition to this next activity about speech issues in current events, we recommend pausing to ask students: Why is it important to protect unpopular or offensive speech? Based on their understanding of the First Amendment, can the government ever draw reasonable limits?

One idea that may emerge in the conversation is that speech is considered a fundamental liberty under American law and that even inflammatory speech, such as racist language by a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, should generally be protected unless it is likely to cause imminent violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

Then, have students read one of these three New York Times articles about speech issues in the news that might affect their lives. We suggest you divide the class into three sections, with each section reading one of the articles. You might choose to break up each section into smaller groups or pairs, based on what groupings tend to work best in your class.

For each article, groups should consider both the relevant policy question and the related constitutional question (here is a student handout ).

“ Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Political Apparel at Polling Sites ” by Adam Liptak (June 14, 2018)

Policy Question: Should voters be able to wear whatever they want to the polling booth? Or, should the government set reasonable limits? Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment allow the government to limit what voters can wear to the polling booth?

“ High Schools Threaten to Punish Students Who Kneel During the Anthem ” by Christine Hauser (Sept. 17, 2017)

Policy Question: Should students be allowed to protest, such as by kneeling during the national anthem, during school hours or while on school property? Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment protect students’ right to protest during school hours or while on school property? Does the First Amendment treat students at government-run schools (public schools) differently than students at private schools?

“ Colleges Grapple with Where — or Whether — to Draw the Line on Free Speech ” by Alina Tugend (June 5, 2018)

Policy Question: Should colleges be able to prohibit controversial or “offensive” public speakers from speaking on campus? Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment protect the speech rights of controversial or “offensive” public speakers on college campuses? Does the First Amendment treat government-run colleges (public colleges) differently than private colleges?

After reading their article, groups should also discuss the following question:

Why is it difficult for scholars, judges and lawmakers to balance robust (strong) speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society? Provide evidence.

Finally, have them revisit the hypothetical situations a third time, discussing them as a group. On their individual handout, students should circle any answer they want to change from the previous two rounds.

Whole Class Debrief and Closing Activity

Groups should report out on their conversations. What article did they read? What was it about? What policy questions did it raise, and what did students think? What constitutional questions did it raise, and what did students think? In addition, they can share any disagreements or changed opinions they have about the hypothetical situations.

If you want to extend the debrief, you can choose one hypothetical situation to restate as a claim, such as “Public school students should be able to criticize school personnel and policies on social media.” Have one student take a stand for the statement. Have another student take a stand against the statement. Each student can make a brief speech in support of his or her statement. Then, one at a time, other students can join the two sides, making additional arguments to support or refute the statements until all students are standing. Students are allowed and encouraged to switch sides as they are swayed.

Finally, ask students to complete this “exit ticket” (PDF) before leaving class. It asks the following questions:

1. Identify at least three ways in which speech can be regulated or limited. • Answers may include time, place and manner restrictions. • Answers may include distinctions between high- and low-value speech. • Answers may vary but must address issues discussed in the essays.

2. Describe two areas in which there is some debate over whether speech can be regulated. • Answers may include social media commentary, bullying and harassment types. • Answers may include low value speech, campaigning or speech that costs money. • Answers may include advocating violence, terroristic threats and artistic speech. • Answers may include speech on high school and college campuses.

3. Explain one way in which your understanding of the speech provision of the First Amendment has changed over the course of today’s lesson. • Students who are stuck may use their warm-up handouts to check how their attitudes changed after reading the essay and talking to others. • Students may explain any way in which their understanding has changed, including differences between high- and low-value speech, the lack of protection that citizens have against corporations or employers, the actions that have been interpreted as speech, or anything else they may have learned over the course of the lesson.

4. When can the United States government limit the freedom of speech?

Related Learning Network Resources

Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Microaggressions: Discussing Questions of Freedom of Speech on Campus

Analyzing the Relationship Between the Press and the President: A Lesson Plan

Freedom of Expression, Online: Outlining the First Amendment for Teenagers

How Important Is Freedom of the Press?

Should Free Speech Protections Include Self Expression That Discriminates?

Should You Always Have the Right to Wear What You Want?

Are School Dress Codes a Good Idea?

Do Laws That Ban Offensive Words Make the World a Better Place?

Should ‘Despised Dissenters’ Be Allowed to Speak on College Campuses?

Staci Garber is a social studies teacher at Caravel Academy in Bear, Del., and a member of the Teacher Advisory Board at the National Constitution Center.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Event Types

• Annual Lectures

Current Topics

• Has Video Recording
• Has Audio Recording

Free Speech, the First Amendment, and Parrhesia

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send by E-mail

No one has done more to shape legal interpretation of the first amendment than Floyd Abrams. Yet when Abrams litigated Citizens United, some proponents of free speech thought that this just gave big money the biggest voice. By contrast in ancient democratic Athens, parrhesia , free and frank speech, was thought to give voice to citizens who lacked power. Join Floyd Abrams , Matt Landauer and Yael Melamede in a conversation about the value of public speech and the relationship between free speech, equality and power, then and now. We will be screening excerpts from Yael Melamede’s 2023 documentary Floyd Abrams: Speaking Freely.

Organized by the Center for Hellenic Studies and the department of the Classics, Harvard University.

• Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University
• Department of Classics, Harvard University

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

• Editorial Independence
• Volokh Daily Email

Free Speech

Journal of Free Speech Law: "Lies and the Law and Introduction," by Prof. Genevieve Lakier

The final article posted from the knight institute’s lies, free speech, and the law symposium..

Eugene Volokh | 4.4.2024 8:01 AM

The article is  here ; the opening paragraphs:

We live in an era of profound anxiety about the threat that lies, and false speech more generally, pose to American democracy. It's not hard to understand why. Lies saturate the political realm. George Santos lied his way into office. Donald J. Trump lied his way through his tenure as president and is gearing up to lie his way back into power. Meanwhile, blatant lies, hyperbolic rhetoric, and misleading claims about important issues of public controversy—critical race theory and its use in public elementary schools, the risk of COVID-19, the reliability of the 2020 election results—saturate many reaches of the mass and social media and motivate, or at least justify, all manner of both elite and popular political mobilization. The obvious political potency of these kinds of lies raises many questions about what kind of society we live in, and about our political past and future. But it also raises deep questions for and about free speech law—perhaps the most fundamental being whether the First Amendment, as it is currently understood, enables or impedes the collective pursuit of something we might call "truth." I spent the 2021–2022 academic year at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, exploring these questions through a series of roundtable discussions culminating in a major symposium in April 2022 on "Lies, Free Speech, and the Law." A fundamental assumption of the modern First Amendment is that (as Justice Holmes put it in his famous dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States ) "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." But as contemporary experience makes quite clear, this assumption is not always true—or, at least, may not be true on a time horizon that prevents society from incurring significant costs—especially if we equate the market, as First Amendment law tends to do, with the hurly burly public marketplace of ideas. There are many reasons why an idea might win out over its competitors on the television screen, in the newspaper, or at the water cooler, other than because it accords better with empirical reality. It might reinforce its audience's assumptions about the world and therefore be easier to embrace than more disruptive alternatives. It might be promoted by an institution or person that is widely viewed as trustworthy. It might be repeated so frequently it becomes one of the taken-for-granted background assumptions of our lives. Or it might give its audience permission to do what they really want to do. The love of truth is not the only motivation that leads listeners to embrace or reject ideas. The result is that there is no reason to think that the fact that an idea wins in the public marketplace of ideas means it must be true, or is likelier to be true, than an idea that fails to win adherents. And yet, First Amendment law makes it quite difficult (although, as I discuss below, not impossible) for the government to exclude from public discourse assertions about the world that are patently false—that do not, in other words, come anywhere close to satisfying the criteria that have traditionally been used to distinguish truth from falsity. This is not necessarily a doctrinal error, and it is not simply a consequence of courts' embrace of the arguably false Holmesian dictate from Abrams . It is also, and to a much greater extent, a consequence of judicial fears that, were the government granted the power to punish false speech, the dynamics of political competition and the vulnerability of government officials to the same cognitive biases that affect how you and I receive information would make that power susceptible to abuse, and thereby result in a public sphere even more saturated with untruths than the one we live in today. In the wake of the Trump presidency, these fears appear very well-justified. Certainly, the fact that one of President Trump's favorite means of deflecting attention away from his own lies and failures was by accusing his enemies of indulging in "fake news" suggests how powerful a political weapon false allegations of falsity can be. The result, nevertheless, is a body of law that, notwithstanding its frequent invocation of the importance of safeguarding the search for truth, often leaves "truth" vulnerable to the manipulation of media moguls, party bosses, and charismatic speakers.

The strictures the First Amendment imposes on the government's power to punish lies did not always appear as much of a problem for the enlightenment ideals of the First Amendment as they do today. This is because, until relatively recently, other mechanisms of disciplining the undisciplined truth-sorting processes of the public marketplace appeared sufficient (at least to those in power) to ensure that that its participants were not fundamentally deluded about the basic facts of their political reality. The press, first and foremost, but also the scientific establishment, the universities, professional organizations—all of these "knowledge institutions"—helped determine whose voice got amplified, what ideas ought to be believed, and what modes of knowledge production were considered legitimate. This gatekeeping was, obviously, not without cost. Professional gatekeeping may have kept many valuable ideas out of wide public circulation. But one of its effects was to limit public contestation over what is true and false, and to place sometimes significant pressure on members of the political, economic, and social elite to obey basic norms of truthfulness when they spoke in public, or to their clients and constituents. To put it in other terms, the older system helped create what Michel Foucault called a "regime of truth" in which there was widespread agreement about what facts were true—even if, in retrospect, we might think some of that agreement was wrong. Over the past few years, however, the ability of these institutions to decide what counts as a true claim has lessened, due to a variety of familiar changes: first the rise of social media, and the democratization it has enabled of the public sphere; second, the decline in elite authority that this democratization and political polarization have accompanied; and third, but closely connected to this, the emergence of a strongly populist, anti-technocratic strain of democratic politics. The decline in the power and influence of the old institutions of truthfulness that has resulted from these changes, as well as their increasing politicization from within, help explain the recent wave of public anxiety about the political problem of lies. It has also motivated politicians, judges, scholars, and others to argue that the government should play more of a role in delimiting what is true or false than it has done in the past, now that the other institutions of truth-delimitation no longer work as well as they once did. The fruit of these arguments are laws like the one California recently enacted, which intrudes upon the otherwise autonomous practices of medical professional associations to mandate discipline for doctors who spread information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments that contradicts the "scientific consensus." Laws like the California COVID misinformation law—and similar efforts by state governments and professional organizations to crack down on false speech—suggest that it is high time to re-examine both the constitutional and subconstitutional legal regimes that either directly or indirectly govern the regulation of false speech in the United States, to better understand what lawmakers should and should not do in response to the current "crisis of truth." More specifically, they raise anew two questions that for many years were left on the backburner of First Amendment law and scholarship because they were assumed to be largely solved or uninteresting. First, exactly how broad is the government's power to punish false and misleading speech under the First Amendment, and how broad should it be? It has long been clear that, notwithstanding the fear of abuse that pervades the false speech cases, the First Amendment does not entirely deny the government the ability to restrict false speech. To the contrary: In certain areas of the law, the First Amendment has been interpreted to permit the government quite broad power to punish speech in part because it is untruthful. For example, in libel cases, plaintiffs may not recover for defamatory statements made about them that are true, but they can recover for defamation that they can show to be false, so long as they can also show that the falsehood was made recklessly or negligently. Similarly, the commercial speech cases grant agencies like the Federal Trade Commission significant power to restrict commercial advertising that is false or misleading to consumers—indeed false or misleading commercial speech is understood to be categorically outside the scope of First Amendment protection. In other areas of the law, however, the extent of the government's power to punish false speech is much less clear. The Court's last word on the subject—its 2012 plurality opinion in Alvarez v. United States —establishes that the government may restrict false speech when it threatens a "legally cognizable harm" but does not do much to spell out what kinds of harms are legally cognizable. The recent crisis of truth is putting pressure on judges and scholars to figure this out. And even with respect to doctrines that we thought were clearly established—such as the law of libel—the recent crisis of truth is pushing some to rethink the existing rules because they believe that the existing rules overvalue the risk of government abuse when compared to the risk of doing nothing in the face of the "proliferation of falsehoods." Second, what else can the government do, consistent with the First Amendment, to ensure that authorities, like doctors, communicate true information to those that trust them, like their patients, and that (politically) attractive but false ideas do not win over difficult but true ones in the public competition of ideas? Given the risk of abuse and the value that lies can sometimes have, it seems clear—whatever you think about a law like the one California just enacted—that bans represent at best a very partial solution to the problem of false information. So what other changes might government institutions make to promote truth and to shore up the power of the old gatekeepers or, alternatively, create new ones? Are there things, in other words, the law can do to promote a public discourse in which there is truth and not just opinion? These are the questions explored in the provocative, rich, and varied essays and blogposts that were written as part of the Lies and the Law project I was privileged enough to spearhead for the Knight Institute. Scholars from many disciplines contributed to the project. Their reflections differ greatly in style, methodologies, and conclusions. Indeed, although contributors all draw from largely the same body of First Amendment cases, they reach very different conclusions about what constraints the First Amendment imposes when it comes to the regulation of false speech. They therefore demonstrate what has always been true of the First Amendment but may be particularly true today: namely, that despite, or perhaps because of, the importance of invocations of freedom of speech to all kinds of political debates, what it means to guarantee freedom of speech in the United States today remains a deeply contested question. This isn't to say that there are no points of agreement among contributors to the project. Collectively, the essays and blogposts illuminate three important themes.

Licenses and Dead Bodies

Liz Wolfe | 4.4.2024 9:30 AM

With Trump and Biden on the Ballot, Many Voters Prefer 'None of the Above'

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the May 2024 issue

Brickbat: Walking the Dog(s)

Charles Oliver | 4.4.2024 4:00 AM

Politicians Are Showering Manufacturing Companies With Crony Subsidies for 'Job Creation.' It Won't Work.

Veronique de Rugy | 4.4.2024 12:01 AM

Taxpayers Refuse To Pay New Stadium Expenses for Billionaire Sports Owners

Varad Raigaonkar | 4.3.2024 3:45 PM

Recommended