Jeff Kosseff: Why False Speech Deserves First Amendment Protections
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.

Over the past decade, no legal scholar has pushed arguments for free speech as far or as influentially as today's guest: Jeff Kosseff, a former journalist who now teaches cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy. In previous books, he defended Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet and stood up for anonymous speech in The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech.
His new book is his boldest yet. It's called Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation and I liked it so much that I blurbed it, calling it "a smart, wry, deeply researched and utterly convincing defense of legal protections for 'misinformation' in an age when we are less likely to agree on basic facts than ever before."
We talk about why "misinformation"—however defined—should be legally protected, how the boundaries between private companies and government are getting blurrier and blurrier, and why so many journalists are calling for limits on the First Amendment.
Today's sponsors:
- DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust is the oldest and largest donor-advised fund made for people who live out with their charitable giving the idea of free minds and free markets. If you don't know about donor-advised funds, you should, especially here at the end of the year. A fund gives you a simple, tax-advantaged way to support the charitable causes you care about. There are lots of providers of donor-advised funds, but DonorsTrust is the one that understands you the best. DonorsTrust is a great friend of Reason and all other nonprofit groups like it. Go find out yourself at donorstrust.org/nick. Watch a short video on how it works and request information to get started.
- The Reason Speakeasy. The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy that doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. Go here to listen to past Speakeasy events and go here to learn about upcoming ones, including one on Tuesday, December 12 with Stanford historian Jennifer Burns, whose new book is The Last Conservative, a highly praised biography of Milton Friedman.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://twitter.com/DissidentSoaps/status/1732492541797302273?t=x8xCFJoCJEz7w24J9bSkxQ&s=19
Our nations highest elected official is willing to consider protecting the United States in order to secure more funds for a foreign country.
That’s where we’re at.
[Link]
Lies are coercion.
They work by falsely representing the real authority of truth/reality to compel people to act in the liar’s interests instead of their own. Lies rob us of our agency.
Any time you’ve ever been fucked over by anyone, you’ve been lied to and every time you’ve been told the truth you have the agency to make a decision based on reality.
Lies are only necessary for corruption to exist.
We need to criminalize lying which will act to strengthen and codify in law how we discern and share truth/reality as ONLY with correctly applied logic and science.
Fuck, you're stupid.
I knew Misek was going to be horribly triggered by this post.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Problem with that is that opposing political opinions are treated by many as lies. See it all the time in these comments. If "lies" were outlawed there'd be a purge every time the political pendulum swung the other way.
Sarc commiserates with Misek. God damn thats a bookmark. How desperate are you for an ally?
I wouldn't ever expect you to tell someone that what they believe is dangerous. No, you'd attack them as people, attack their families, and generally make them want to disagree with you simply because they don't want to be like you.
What the fuck, Sarcasmic. Misek isn't some innocent getting picked on, he's an actual antisemite.
Seriously. Ask him what he thinks of the Jews. Ask him if he thinks the Holocaust happened. Ask him if Jews control the world.
Hahaha
Crimes against humanity.
Genocide
Terrorism
Get used to it. You earned it.
Why would anyone want to agree with you other than to have the approval of a mean little man?
I have to agree. There is a strong difference between a difference of opinion, a difference of conclusion, simply being wrong (either due to a lack of information or just messing up), and an outright lie. Trying to conflate these is a major problem.
For example, the Covington Kid situation was an outright lie. It may have begun as being wrong for some, but the failure to correct was a lie.
Climate change or gun violence is a difference of conclusion. The absurdly high deaths caused by including suicides and 19 year old drug dealers in "children killed by guns" are a lie.
This isn't new. I'm pretty much restating stanadrd defamation law.
You’ve made at least three errors in logic to come to your own faulty conclusion.
Firstly, you’ve completely ignored how correctly applied logic and science yields objective conclusions that represent truth aka reality. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, you ignored the obvious logic that claiming you know something to be true, proven, that isn’t is a lie. Mistakes are your choice only to make.
Thirdly, you’re oblivious to the need to eliminate ambiguity when claiming that something is true or false. Identifying and answering unambiguous questions is the key to being truthful.
With all your errors in basic logic it’s easy to see why you can’t discern truth and assume that nobody else can either. Misery likes company.
You just advocated ELIMINATING anything resembling freedom of speech. As soon as you allow ANYONE to prohibit what they CLAIM is false, you allow them to prohibit TRUTH by claiming it is false.
If you admit you are against freedom of speech, I can respect your position while opposing it. If you refuse to admit as much, I will call you a lying hypocrite, because that is the most positive view of anyone saying they believe in free speech with ANY exceptions.
Read much?
“ which will act to strengthen and codify in law how we discern and share truth/reality as ONLY with correctly applied logic and science”
Now do your little song and dance and try again.
Man, that money they gave the Bidens has been a gold mine for Ukraine.
Tulpa hacking the accounts of lefty commenters then posting is protected. Also often bookmarked.
Lol. Good morning call back.
That is some masterful baiting.
The all day victim signaling post was spot on.
Tulpa, give sarc his account back.
https://twitter.com/DolioJ/status/1732500834183790704?t=BAcw1967wKtqL6jYwhFdZw&s=19
Earlier today on our show, I pointed out that whenever Wray issues one of his "warnings", something happens within 72 hours.
Now we have a mass shooting at UNLV.
But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
"why "misinformation"—however defined—should be legally protected"
I take exception to the wording of this concept. We should have a right to hold and express our opinions whether true, false, misguided, verifiable or not. Government should not be allowed to censor our opinions and the expression of our opinions either directly through punishment or indirectly through regulation or threats of punishment to the press or other platforms. Any exceptions to the right to free speech should be clearly defined, limited to clear and present danger of physical harm to other persons, and subject to immediate appeal.
Because modern journalists are lying leftist propagandists and not people seeking to illuminate truth would be my guess. Funny how anything outside that marxist bubble doesn't deserve think pieces on why such speech should be protected.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era
Don't you mean the Obama/Trump/Biden era? Each administration gets worse and worse when it comes to misinformation.
No one can define "misinformation" and certainly no government body can possibly be unbiased in enforcement.
OF COURSE all "false speech" (as defined by who?) is protected by the first amendment because the alternative is that all speech is controlled by the government.
Truth is defined by whoever has the last word in violence. After all, if you have the power to kill anyone who disagrees with you, then whatever you say is the truth. That’s why both political tribes are jockeying for control over speech. Because government is the last word in violence.
Freedom of speech is either ABSOLUTE, or NONEXISTENT. As soon as you allow ANYONE to determine what speech is protected and what speech is not, you have given that party the power to censor ALL speech they don't like.
Note: Contrary to popular belief, the 1st amendment protects the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. However, it does not shield you from liability for the predictable results of doing so. If you shout fire, when there is no fire, and someone is harmed in a stampede prompted by your action, you are liable for causing the injury.
We should look at COVID.
How much "misinformation" was actually 100% correct?
How much "medical information" was actually misinformation?
You cannot go back in time and fix censorship.
Okay, but just say "Speech" and not false or fake speech. And stop making every legal case where someone opened their mouth a speech case. My community does not need any other higher community to step in-- that is NOT protecting OUR speech.
How many fat rich gated community pols had opinions on the Skokie, Illinois Nazi march case.