A couple of weeks ago in this post, I discussed the idea proposed by certain lefties that there should be a government Ministry of Truth. That is, they wanted the government to regulate MSM by requiring them to report "the whole story" or "the complete truth."
Of course, when asked to define "the whole truth" or what "complete" and "accurate" mean, they couldn't do it and typically went off into incoherent rants. Once it was clear they were unable to define these words, I would then come back with the simple, constitutional argument: such regulations of the content of speech are unconstitutional. In other words, the First Amendment isn't actually designed to require speakers to tell "the truth;" it is designed to allow the free flow of ideas so that listeners can make up their own minds about what "the truth" is.
This isn't to say that the First Amendment is a free pass for lying. There are laws against libel and slander, after all. And even celebrities can win libel suits, provided the offense is egregious enough.
But while the courts frown on prior restraint (the idea that the government can prevent a person from publishing certain ideas), there are times when it is necessary.
Law.com has this story about a California case where prior restraint was the proper course of action.
Last week, the Supreme Court of California decided a case that presented the question whether the same principles that preclude courts from enjoining libelous speech in the first instance should continue to preclude courts from enjoining the repetition of those remarks even after they have been adjudged libelous following a full trial on the merits.
The beautiful locale of Newport Beach, Calif., provided the setting for the dispute giving rise to the case. Anne Lemen, who lives across an alley from the Balboa Island Village Inn, has complained repeatedly to authorities about excess noise coming from the inn and the conduct of seemingly inebriated customers leaving the inn.
After Lemen began telling people that the inn serves tainted food, sells alcohol to minors, distributes illegal drugs, has Mafia connections, is involved in making child pornography, participates in acts of prostitution, serves as a whorehouse, produces sex videos, encourages lesbian activities and stays open until 6 a.m., the inn sued Lemen for defamation.
Following trial, a California state trial court found that Lemen had made those statements and that they were defamatory. At the inn's request, the trial court entered a permanent injunction that prohibited Lemen from continuing to make the specific defamatory statements that she was found to have previously made.
The defendant argued that monetary compensation for the defamatory statements was enough, but the court ruled that defendant was barred from repeating those statements again. It makes sense; if not for the injunction, defendant could continue making the defamatory statements and money would not have fully compensated the plaintiff.
This is a much different situation from the liberals who want a truth squad. Mainly, they are irritated that their particular axes don't get ground enough in the MSM (9/11 was an inside job, for instance, or the 2000 election was stolen, or George Bush lied about intelligence to go to war in Iraq). And while there is some percentage of people whacked out enough to believe each of these theories, it would be a real offense to the First Amendment were the government to compel MSM to publish them. If liberals want these theories espoused, they can form their own media companies and publish them.
|