I don’t think so. I think there’s a pretty significant legal difference between ordering someone not to say something, and ordering them to specifically publicly say something that’s false.
The former has been tested and is (for some reason) within the bounds of the first amendment. While forcing someone to publicly say something false almost certainly is outside the bounds of the first amendment.
Do a search on the case law around “compelled speech”. tl;dr the government can force you to not talk, but they can’t force you to blatantly lie either. As an example, check out the difference between the denials of PRISM vs this.
The argument goes that the government might be able to compel you not to speak, but they cannot compel you to speak against your wishes (and, in particular, to lie).
The precedent supports that to some degree, but it's really not clear.
Perhaps but the harm is vastly different in scale.
Private banning of speech doesn’t prevent the individual from stating those claims elsewhere. Government mandated banning of speech does prevent that speech from being used elsewhere.
I think the current US law is that lawmen can try to compel you to not discuss a subject, and try to jail you if you do, however, they cannot try to tell you to speak falsehoods about a subject.
Kind of. That's the law of course. But freedom of speech, in America at least, is also a principle of our Republic. We should all strive to encourage this freedom. To attempt to quash someone from speaking their mind is morally wrong, and is actually un-American.
The idea is that “compelled speech” is unconstitutional as per the First Amendment. As in, they (the government) can force you to not say something, but they can’t force you to say something you don’t want to. AFAIK, it hasn’t been tested in the courts, and if it has, it would be under seal (preventing us from seeing the orders).
Do you have a reference for this? There is apparently case law from the 1970s' where SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot compel someone to speak against their wishes.
Genuinely curious: Do you believe that there are no limits to free speech, nor any scenarios in which, without prior censorship, you may say something that is illegal?
What I described enables someone to publish lies that actively harm a second person, but then the first person gets fined / jailed for it. Do you think this is reasonable? Or that the sanctity of free speech should protect that first person, and impose on third people the effort and responsibility of determining whether what was said about the second person is fact or lie?
Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.
Any gag order would be unconstitutional. One may explain their expected consequences of saying a particular thing, but another always has a right to speak whatever they want.
This is a legal hypothetical advocated by Jordan Peterson and not actually ever demonstrated in reality / tested in court / etc., right? (That is, neither Peterson nor anyone else has said that they were compelled to speak in a certain way and there are no legal proceedings against anyone who has refused to speak in a certain way, right?)
You're wrong. Enforcing someone to refrain is exactly what he's talking about. You are asking someone to do something if you are asking them to refrain from speaking, as it's their liberty to speak.
That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.
It's not a 'logic bomb'. US law sets a high bar for prior restraint, an even higher one for compelled speech, and has never compelled false speech as far as I'm aware.
And no, most rulings are, in fact, logically consistent.
The former has been tested and is (for some reason) within the bounds of the first amendment. While forcing someone to publicly say something false almost certainly is outside the bounds of the first amendment.
reply