The Corner

Free Speech, Free Lies, and Michael Mann

Of all the many compelling arguments in favor of the freedom of speech, the most important perhaps is that governments cannot — and should not — be in the business of attempting to define truth. A decent respect for both History and the inevitable pitfalls of human nature teach us well that there is no such thing as neutral power or benign force. Even if men were capable of wholly objective and dispassionate judgment, they would, it seems, remain incapable of elevating their verdicts above their preferences and their interests. Cincinnatus is largely a myth: The smartest and best among us have ambition, too, I’m afraid.

Even if man were perfectable, it would also remain true that there exists no reasonable or reliable manner in which a determination of “truth” might be set in aspic. Free-speech absolutists such as myself are often asked why it “should be legal” for Americans to deny the Holocaust when we “know” that it happened. In large part, the answer to this is that punishing speakers for dissenting from a proposition necessarily involves establishing such a proposition: something that governments are not equipped to do. There are, after all, many shades of Holocaust revisionism: one man might say “the whole thing is a hoax,” another might say that he believes that the number of dead was closer to five million than to six million, and yet another might question a feature of the historiography or the motivations of a particular author who is currently in favor with the majority. Who will decide which man goes to jail? Hopefully, nobody in particular. Truth may well be an objective and absolute thing, but scientific, historical, and political arguments as to its nature thrive most organically in the open public square. They do not prosper when subjected to the whims of the Ministry of Truth.

A case before the Supreme Court today, Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus, goes to the very heart of this issue, addressing the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits the prosecution of those who “lie” during political campaigns. As is its wont, the press has had a field day in its coverage, suggesting almost uniformly that the court is deciding whether dishonesty is protected by the Constitution. As is traditional in coverage of Supreme Court cases, this characterization rather spectacularly misses the mark. As Michael Carvin and Yaakov Roth write today in the Journal, what is really at stake is neither whether one should lie nor whether one has “the right to lie,” but

who should decide whether a political campaign advertisement is true—courts, wielding the power to impose fines or imprisonment, or the American people, wielding the power to elect or turf the competing candidate. The stakes for free speech and the democratic process are very high.

People often disagree about what is the “truth,” particularly in the political context. While websites such as PolitiFact purport to fact-check claims by politicians, even it characterizes many statements as “half-true”—one-sided, perhaps, or simply open to reasonable interpretation. The problem with a law prohibiting “false” statements about candidates is that it threatens to chill free political discourse, by silencing speakers who believe they are speaking truth but are fearful of being subjected to burdensome, costly legal proceedings by their political adversaries. . . .

Astute observers of the current legal landscape will note the parallel here with National Review’s own defense case against Michael Mann, an intolerant and prickly climate-scientist who is currently engaged in an attempt to weaponize the libel laws against those who would dissent from his position and criticize his style. As in Susan B. Anthony List, the material question here is not whether Mann is correct, but whether our courts and our legislatures are the appropriate venues in which such questions might be resolved. They are not. Here, as elsewhere, our nine lawyers-in-black should side with the defenders of liberty — and emphatically so. The integrity of the republic depends upon it.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More