• Home
  • About
  • Africa
  • Americas
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Middle East
  • Russia
  • South Asia
  • Space
  • World
  • Newsletters
  • Podcast
  • Contributors
  • Write For Us
  • Contact Us
Facebook Twitter YouTube
  • Leaders
  • States
  • Networks
  • Ideologies
  • Technologies
Facebook Twitter YouTube
Globely NewsGlobely News
  • Africa
  • Americas
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Middle East
  • Russia
  • South Asia
  • Space
  • World
Subscribe
Trending
  • Pro-Russia Bloc Victory in Slovakia Polls Would Mark End of Ukraine Aid
  • Ukraine and Russia Spar Over Invasion’s Legality
  • Ukraine Military Faces Manpower Shortage in War With Russia
  • Imran Khan Remains Pakistan’s Most Popular Politician By Far
  • Vivek Ramaswamy’s Immigration Views Clash With His Real Life Story
  • How the African Union Can the Most of Its G20 Membership
  • Unpacking China’s Moves to Regulate Generative AI
  • Canadian Sikh Killing Should Be the West’s Wakeup Call on India
Globely NewsGlobely News
Home » George Santos: Why It’s Hard for Democracies to Penalize Liars
Americas

George Santos: Why It’s Hard for Democracies to Penalize Liars

Miguel SchorBy Miguel SchorFebruary 1, 2023
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp
george santos lies resignation
The election of George Santos illustrates the challenges facing American democracy: government has no constitutional power to regulate lies. (Image Credit: U.S. Congress)
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp

George Santos is not the first politician to have lied, but the fables he told to get elected to Congress may be in a class by themselves. Historian Sean Wilentz remarked that while embellishments happen, Santos’ lies are different – “there is no example like it” in American history, Wilentz told Vox in a late-January, 2023, story.

Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote that Santos was “a stone cold liar who effectively committed election fraud.”

And now Santos has taken the dramatic step of removing himself temporarily from the committees he’s been assigned to: the House Small Business Committee and the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The Washington Post reports Santos told his GOP colleagues that he would be a “distraction” until cleared in several probes of his lies.

While Santos’ lies got some attention from local media, they did not become widely known until The New York Times published an exposé after his election.

Santos’ lies may have gotten him into hot water with the voters who put him in the House, and a few of his colleagues, including the New York GOP, want him to resign. CBS News reported that federal investigators are looking at Santos’ finances and financial disclosures.

But the bulk of Santos’ misrepresentations may be protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that lies enjoy First Amendment protection – not because of their value, but because the government cannot be trusted with the power to regulate lies.

In other words, lies are protected by the First Amendment to safeguard democracy.

So how can unwitting voters be protected from sending a fraud to Congress?

Any attempt to craft a law aimed at the lies in politics will run into practical enforcement problems. And attempts to regulate such lies could collide with a 2012 Supreme Court case United States v. Alvarez.

Lies and the First Amendment

Xavier Alvarez was a fabulist and a member of a public water board who lied about having received the Congressional Medal of Honor in a public meeting. He was charged in 2007 with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a federal crime to lie about having received a military medal.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that lies should not be protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that lies are protected by the First Amendment unless there is a legally recognized harm, such as defamation or fraud, associated with the lie. So the Stolen Valor Act was struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The court pointed out that some false statements are “inevitable if there is to be open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation.”

Crucially, the court feared that the power to criminalize lies could damage American democracy. The court reasoned that unless the First Amendment limits the power of the government to criminalize lies, the government could establish an “endless list of subjects about which false statements are punishable.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Alvarez, illustrated this danger by citing George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” in which a totalitarian government relied on a Ministry of Truth to criminalize dissent. Our constitutional tradition, he wrote, “stands against the idea that we need” a Ministry of Truth.

Lies, Politics and Social Media

George Santos, unlike Xavier Alvarez, lied during an election campaign.

In Alvarez, the Supreme Court expressed concern about laws criminalizing lies in politics. It warned that the Stolen Valor Act applied to “political contexts, where although such lies are more likely to cause harm,” the risk that prosecutors would bring charges for ideological reasons was also high.

The court believed that the marketplace of ideas was a more effective and less dangerous mechanism for policing lies, particularly in politics. Politicians and journalists have the incentives and the resources to examine the records of candidates such as Santos to uncover and expose falsehoods.

The story of George Santos, though, is a cautionary tale for those who hold an idealized view of how the marketplace of ideas operates in contemporary American politics.

Democracy has not had a long run when measured against the course of human history. From the founding of the American republic in the late 18th century until the advent of the modern era, there was a rough division of labor. Citizens selected leaders, and experts played a critical gatekeeping role, mediating the flow of information.

New information technologies have largely displaced the role of experts. Everyone now claims to be an expert who can decide for themselves whether COVID-19 vaccines are effective or who really won the 2020 presidential election. These technologies have also destroyed the economic model that once sustained local newspapers.

Thus, although one local newspaper did report on Santos’ misrepresentations, his election is evidence that the loss of news reporting jobs has damaged America’s democracy.

Lies that Harm Democracy

The election of George Santos illustrates the challenges facing American democracy. The First Amendment was written in an era when government censorship was the principal danger to self-government. Today, politicians and ordinary citizens can harness new information technologies to spread misinformation and deepen polarization. A weakened news media will fail to police those assertions, or a partisan news media will amplify them.

As a scholar of constitutional law, comparative constitutionalism, democracy, and authoritarianism, I believe that Justice Kennedy’s Alvarez opinion relied on a flawed understanding of the dangers facing democracy. He maintained that government regulation of speech is a greater threat to democracy than are lies. Laws that targeted lies would have to survive the most exacting scrutiny – which is nearly always fatal to government regulation of speech.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurring opinion argued that a different test should be used. Courts, Breyer said, should assess any speech-related harm that might flow from the law as well as the importance of the government objective and whether the law furthers that objective. This is known as intermediate scrutiny or proportionality analysis. It is a form of analysis that is widely used by constitutional courts in other democracies.

Intermediate scrutiny or proportionality analysis does not treat all government regulations of speech as presumptively unconstitutional. It forces courts to balance the value of the speech against the justifications for the law in question. That is the right test, Justice Breyer concluded, when assessing laws that penalize “false statements about easily verifiable facts.”

The two approaches will lead to different results when governments seek to regulate lies. Even proposed, narrowly written laws aimed at factual misrepresentations by politicians about their records or about who won an election might not survive the high degree of protection afforded lies in the United States.

Intermediate scrutiny or proportionality analysis, on the other hand, will likely enable some government regulation of lies – including those of the next George Santos – to survive legal challenge.

Democracies have a better long-term survival track record than dictatorships because they can and do evolve to deal with new dangers. The success of America’s experiment in self-government may well hinge, I believe, on whether the country’s democracy can evolve to deal with new information technologies that help spread falsehoods that undermine democracy.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Miguel Schor

Miguel Schor is professor of law and associate director of the Drake University Constitutional Law Center, Drake University.

    This author does not have any more posts.
Democracy Politics Republican Party United States

More from Globely News

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Immigration Views Clash With His Real Life Story

September 27, 2023

Zelensky Seeks Biden and Trudeau Support for Long War

September 25, 2023

Race for Green Metals Goes to South Asia

September 25, 2023

Pakistan’s U.S. Tilt Risks Chinese and Russian Ire

September 18, 2023

Bangladesh Shows How to Play the Multipolar Game

September 15, 2023

Why Macron’s Neoliberal Africa Policy Fuels Distrust

September 6, 2023
Add A Comment

Comments are closed.

Newsletter

Subscribe to the Globely Daily

Our flagship newsletter covers the leaders, states, networks, ideologies, and technologies that are transforming world power.

Pro-Russia Bloc Victory in Slovakia Polls Would Mark End of Ukraine Aid

September 29, 2023

Ukraine and Russia Spar Over Invasion’s Legality

September 29, 2023

Ukraine Military Faces Manpower Shortage in War With Russia

September 28, 2023

Imran Khan Remains Pakistan’s Most Popular Politician By Far

September 28, 2023
© 2023 Globely News.
  • Home
  • About
  • Editorial Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contributors
  • Write For Us
  • Contact Us

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
SettingsAccept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
SAVE & ACCEPT

Ad Blocker Enabled

Ad Blocker Enabled
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please support us by disabling your Ad Blocker.
Go to mobile version