Debate Desk
Should Government Fight Misinformation by Policing What People Say?
Misinformation is not a legal category; government officials have been wrong about contested claims, and the remedy for error is open debate.
The claim
False information spreads quickly online and can mislead voters, endanger public health and undermine trust. Supporters of action say that the government should work with platforms to identify and limit falsehoods, and that doing nothing leaves citizens at the mercy of liars.
The answer in three points
- In America, the government does not decide what is true and what is false for the citizens to hear. The First Amendment protects false statements that do not amount to fraud or defamation, because the alternative is to give officials the power to define truth, and officials have been wrong. Claims once labeled false have later been taken up as plausible, including debates on the origin of the pandemic.
- The right remedy is more speech. The government can state its own case, publish its data and correct errors in public. Citizens, scientists and journalists can respond. What it may not do is use its power to pressure platforms to remove lawful speech.
- A short-lived effort illustrates the risk. In 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced a Disinformation Governance Board and then suspended it within weeks after a public outcry, because the public understood that a government arbiter of truth was a danger.
A free people corrects error in public and through debate.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided NRA v. Vullo in 2024 by a unanimous vote, holding that a government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech.
- The Supreme Court decided Murthy v. Missouri in June 2024, ruling on standing that the plaintiffs had not shown the necessary link between the government's contacts and their injuries.
- The Department of Homeland Security announced a Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022 and paused its work in May 2022, according to the department.
What they will say next
"Platforms asked for the government's help." If a platform wants information from officials, that is one thing. If officials demand removals and signal consequences, that is another, and the line is whether the request carries a threat.
"Falsehoods cause real harm." They do, and the law punishes fraud and defamation. A broader ban would sweep in claims that turn out to be right.
"Experts know best." Experts are valuable and sometimes wrong, and science advances by challenge. A system that suppresses dissent weakens its own correction.
"The Court did not decide Murthy on the merits." True, and the opinion's record of the contacts remains useful. The principle in Vullo stands.
Trust grows when authorities answer arguments and not when they silence them.
"Foreign propaganda is a real threat." It is, and government can expose it, sanction its sources and speak for itself. It need not and should not decide which domestic speech is false.