Essay About Lies And The First Amendment

In the article, “The Truth about Lies and the First Amendment,” the author Ken Paulson writes to illustrate an important point regarding Xavier Alvarez, who was arrested and charged with a criminal offense for lying about being a recipient of the prestigious medal of honor award, and free speech: that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with its findings that the first amendment also protects Xavier Alvarez’s lies from legal, governmental prosecution.

In particular, the court has reasoned that free speech is at risk of censorship if it allows governments to become the overseers and regulators of truth. Which was why in one of the court’s many arguments, Judge Milan was adamant when stating that “‘the general freedom from government interference with

speech … without the government injecting itself into the discussion as the arbiter of truth, contribute(s) to the ‘breathing space’ the First Amendment needs to survive’” (Paulson).
That decision is crucial to free speech, and it warrants a very important question that needs to be answered: When can a person be legally charged, or even sued, for lying?

Sometimes the answer is obvious. You cannot lie to law enforcers when under legal detention and questioning. You also cannot lie in the court of law, as the author has pointed out: “You can’t lie under oath” (Paulson). Those are prosecutable lies under lawful situations.

At the same time, however, even though people have the tendency to be dishonest, not all lies are legally prosecutable. When asked to judge another person’s appearance, for example, some tend to lie in favor of that person, just to make the person feel better. When trying to avoid doing chores, some tend to lie about being too occupied with homework. Those are what I considered to be lies in the names of politeness and laziness; lies that cause no harm to others.

Now, aside from lying in court, and aside from lying to avoid chores, a deceiver must, therefore, face legal prosecution if the lie can be undeniably interpreted as a verbal agreement; and is of such a detrimental natural, that it has inflicted either, or both, financial hardship or personal damage upon

others.
Now, observe this hypothetical situation. Let us assume that at my ten-year high school reunion, I reunited with a former good friend; I’ll call him X. Towards the end of the celebration, X has approached me and informed me that he has established a new foundation that grants three scholarships to three excellent college students each semester. However, X’s foundation has struggled with funding because the foundation operated under a sole proprietorship; and X is the boss and the worker, and the only financial contributor. That’s the reason why X proceeded to ask me to contribute to his foundation by generously donating at least five hundred dollars.
Surrounded by old friends and classmates, and having the urge to swank despite knowing that the necessary funding is not there, I uttered, “I’ll contribute two thousand dollars! Here’s my number. Call me.” X became excited and saved my number. The reunion finally ended after a few drinks, and everyone went on his or her own ways.
But five months down the road, X called my phone twenty times before leaving a voicemail to inform me that his foundation is still waiting for the donation money. To make matters worse, X also said his foundation has agreed to award a total of three thousand dollars to three excellent college students a week after I have agreed to donate the money to his charity. Therefore, X has personally used his own money to fund the scholarships, and, above all, is now waiting for me to deliver on my end of the verbal agreement.
Even so, I finally wised up, picked up the phone, and called X to confess to lying about contributing. I just simply did not have the money. X then started to sob before informing me that he is financially crippled because he has invested his saving into the scholarship foundation and needed the two thousand dollars to pay his creditors in order to prevent a default on his loans. He had no other recourses but to seek legal representations; he planned to take me to court for lying, and for breaking a verbal contract.
With all the above events considered, can I be legally prosecuted and sued for lying?
A reasonable person will agree that I can be sued and be prosecuted under the scenarios mentioned above. And, in this case and other similar cases, the first amendment does not protect the lie I have told when trying to present myself as an affluent person. The point is I gave a verbal agreement despite knowing I cannot honor it. The verbal agreement, in term, has encouraged X to invest his own money into subsidizing the scholarships; which X has only agreed to do so because he believed, in good faith, that I will keep my words and will contribute.
For those reasons, the main consequences for X are: my lie has cost X money; and, it has also created a financial burden for X, which, probably, also resulted in depression too. Now, also try to imagine what could happen if X no longer can afford to award the scholarships to the three students because I did not deliver the money; and, as a result, X had no other option but to renege on his promise to the students. This then leads X to inform the students that he can no longer supply the awards due to his own financial difficulties. His reputation and his company’s reputation, then, could potentially be ruined by my lie at this point.
So that is why it is very difficult to believe that the free speech clause in the first amendment will shield the type of lies that can be interpreted as a verbal agreement, which have influenced others into engaging in transactions that resulted in financial hardships to themselves. It is also difficult to believe that those types of lies will withstand criticisms and pity in the court of law – that is, it is reasonable, but not arguable, that I will probably be found liable and will be ordered to pay more than what my lie has initially agreed upon; a judgment that many will agree to be warranted and justified and unprotected under the first amendment.