USA v. Xavier Alvarez - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ
11887
important exception to this principle: where protecting a false
statement is necessary “in order to protect speech that matters.”
Gertz, 418 U.S. at 341; see also BE & K, 536 U.S. at
531 (“[W]hile false statements may be unprotected for their
own sake, ‘[t]he First Amendment requires that we protect
some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.’ ”
(emphasis omitted) (second alteration in original) (quoting
Gertz, 418 U.S. at 341)). In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964), the seminal case in this area, the Court
extended limited First Amendment protection to libelous
statements “critical of the official conduct of public officials.”
Id. at 268. Because “erroneous statement is inevitable in free
debate, and . . . must be protected if the freedoms of expression
are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need to survive,’
” the Court feared that permitting public officials to
bring tort claims against their critics based on a false statement
of fact would “lead[ ] to . . . ‘self-censorship,’ ” deterring
such critics “from voicing their criticism[ ] even though
it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true.” Id.
at 271-72, 279 (ellipsis omitted). In order to protect against
such “self-censorship,” the Court adopted “a federal rule that
prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a
defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he
proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that
is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard
First Amendment protection. See John Paul Stevens, The Freedom of
Speech, 102 YALE L. J. 1293, 1296 (1993) (“I emphasize the word ‘the’
as used in the term ‘the freedom of speech’ because the definite article
suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified
category or subset of speech. That category could not have been coextensive
with the category of oral communications that are commonly
described as ‘speech’ in ordinary usage. . . . The Amendment has never
been understood to protect all oral communication.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, the lack of protection afforded false statements of fact is no more
of an “exception” to the First Amendment than the lack of First Amendment
protection afforded the pulling of a gun trigger. Neither of these
activities is considered part of “the freedom of speech,” so neither should
be characterized as an exception to the First Amendment.