As far as the current situation is concerned, the Washington restaurant Ping Pong has been falsely blacked out as the center of child pornography trafficking in Pizzagate mess, which does not have much effect on legal remedies.
It may sue anonymous conspiracy theory suppliers for defamation, but even if it can find them, they may not have the money to recover and the damage to the restaurant's reputation has been done.
In Europe, however, the situation may vary.
The European Union recognizes the "right to be forgotten" on the Internet, which in some cases allows for the removal or blocking of posts from search engines.
Extending this right to American victims who are clearly false news reports could actually help victims like Ping, who are labeled false, otherwise they won't disappear.
In the spirit of the endof-
One year of creativity is worth asking: Can Congress put in place legal remedies for fake news victims that comply with the First Amendment?
The answer is complicated, but I think it's a qualified "yes ". U. S.
The law may authorize the publication of a judicial order--
Maybe it's searchable. -
It was proved to be a false, concrete, defamatory statement in court.
The First Amendment will still protect the writing of these stories.
But that does not protect the statement itself.
To be sure, AmericaS.
The Supreme Court has gone far. -
Maybe too far. -
Protect false statements.
In the main case, the United StatesS. v.
On 2012, Judge Anthony Kennedy issued a diversified opinion, which will be completely free.
Protection of speech that Alvares knew and deliberately lied about getting the medal of honor.
In this precedent, Congress cannot ban falsehood as a general problem.
But Kennedy's view left an important loophole: the traditional exception to the First Amendment to slander.
Although false statements outside the context of defamation have been protected statements since Alvares's decision, the same is true of defamatory statements.
This means that the government cannot punish you for saying 1 = 3, because while it is false, it will not discredit anyone.
But it may be damaged by making up the story of a particular pizzeria being the center of a minor sex ring run by a particular group of people, because this statement is deliberately false, slander the owner and staff of the pizzeria and the specific politicians who are said to be involved.
When defamation is directed against a private party, the fact that the statement is false and defamatory is sufficient to free it from
Voice protection.
When it is against public figures, the New York Times v.
Sullivan's precedent requires that the libel statement be not only false, but malicious, meaning that its authors deliberately lie or recklessly ignore the truth.
The remedy I am considering will be based on this libel exception.
For example, Congress may say that there is a private right to delete the libel statement from the Internet.
It may add that it is a general legal obligation not to make such defamatory remarks.
What's more, perhaps even more doubtful, is that it may ban enabling publications through the search feature.
In order to prevent excessive use of provisions restricting freedom of expression, Congress may need to hold a trial --
Just like a federal court session before the start of the remedy.
Therefore, Comet Ping can sue the person who slandered it in court.
If the court considers the Pizzagate allegations to be false and defamatory, then it has a statutory power to order the removal of these statements.
If Ping is considered to be a public figure, then these stories must prove to be malicious and false.
It may even be desirable to extend this greater protection to everyone under the law, just to protect freedom of speech more.
The First Amendment has some possible objections to this idea, but they all have enough answers.
One might argue that the traditional libel exception does not prohibit speech. -
It only allows the person who has made the slander to pay damages for the slander.
It can be argued that the total ban is too much.
But it seems that this opposition is not quite right.
A person who violates a court order and does not publish defamation in the system I propose will, after all, be compensated for damages, which is the same deterrent used in ordinary defamation.
Another possible objection is that the law reached third.
First of all, it is not only the publisher of slander.
But that is not the goal.
To me, repeating the existing slander is slander, and I can be held liable to do so.
The exact form of a word is not important.
If there is a dispute as to whether a statement is the same as an illegal slander, the court that issued the original order may resolve it.
Regulate the search engine by legal order, the way the European right wingto-
By law, forgetting the system is probably the trickiest part.
This is also the most important thing. U. S.
All people who post fake news will not receive a withdrawal.
But they are likely to cover the main search engines people use to spread articles, as well as social networking sites that spread fake news.
Google or Facebook may try to say that they should not be reported because they have not posted slander, just to have someone else access the posted information.
At present, the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protect Internet providers and similar services from being prosecuted for content published by users.
The law I imagined would have to lift the safe harbor for defamatory fake news.
If so, the constitution will not be violated.
Traditionally, repeated slander is the expression of slander.
If Google or Facebook reprints a libel statement on its proprietary page, the First Amendment allows it to be regarded as a libel.
In short, the law against fake news does not have to set up a ministry of truth.
This is enough, and it can build on the tradition of judicial judgment against false, defamatory statements.
There is no need for the first amendment to be violated. And truth --
The traditional goal of freedom of speech-
Will not be hurt, will be strengthened.
Contact the author of this story: Noah feldman7 @ bloomberg Feldman.
NetTo contacted the editor in charge of the story: Stacey Shick from sshick @ bloomberg.