A New Bill in Idaho Seeks to Criminalize Lying About Others, Raising First Amendment Concerns
In an effort to combat the spread of false information, Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle has introduced a bill that would criminalize knowingly lying about another person. The proposed legislation, which was introduced to the House State Affairs Committee on Friday, would make it a felony to publish a false statement about someone with "actual malice." If passed, the bill would impose significant penalties, including fines of up to $100,000, up to five years in prison, or both. This move has sparked a heated debate about the balance between free speech and the consequences of spreading falsehoods.
The Definition of "Actual Malice" and the Scope of the Bill
The bill defines "actual malice" as knowingly publishing a false statement or acting with reckless disregard for whether the statement is false. Additionally, the term "publish" is broadly defined as "communicate to a person or persons," which could include spoken words, written statements, or even social media posts. Moyle explained the intent behind the bill by drawing a parallel to a classic legal example: yelling "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire. He argued that such an act is not only dangerous but also not protected under the First Amendment. "I’m a firm believer in our First Amendment right," Moyle said, "but I also believe that our founding fathers did not include in the First Amendment the ability to lie about somebody."
The Penalty for Violations and the Role of Prosecutors
If the bill becomes law, violations would carry severe penalties. Individuals found guilty of "criminal libel" could face up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $100,000, or both. Additionally, those convicted would be required to provide restitution to the victim for any specific costs or losses incurred as a result of the false statement. The bill also grants the attorney general or county prosecuting attorney the authority to pursue prosecution if the false statement is made about a state elected official or state employee in relation to their official conduct. This provision raises questions about the potential for selective enforcement and the impact on public discourse.
Opposition and Concerns About First Amendment Implications
While the House State Affairs Committee unanimously introduced the bill, not all lawmakers are convinced it is the right approach. Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, expressed concerns about the potential First Amendment issues the bill could raise. "My concern is that if you make every liar a felon, then we’re going to be in a lot of trouble, not enough room in our jails," Skaug said. His comments highlight the tension between addressing harmful falsehoods and preserving the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Legal experts and civil liberties organizations are likely to scrutinize the bill closely, as similar laws in other states have faced challenges in court.
Current Libel Laws in Idaho and the Proposed Changes
Currently, Idaho’s libel laws define libel as "malicious defamation" intended to harm someone’s reputation or expose them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The punishment for libel under the current law is a fine of up to $5,000 or up to six months in county jail. The proposed bill significantly increases the penalties and broadens the definition of libel to include any false statement made with actual malice. This expansion could have far-reaching implications, particularly in cases involving public figures or officials. Critics argue that the bill could chill free speech by making people hesitant to express opinions or share information for fear of legal repercussions.
The Broader Context and the Impact on Public Discourse
The introduction of this bill comes at a time when issues of truth, misinformation, and defamation are prominent in public discourse. High-profile defamation cases, such as the lawsuit against MSNBC and the settlement reached by ABC News, highlight the real-world consequences of false statements. While the intent of the bill is to hold individuals accountable for spreading lies, its implementation could set a precedent for how states balance free speech with the need to protect reputations and prevent harm. As the bill moves through the legislative process, it is likely to face rigorous debate and legal challenges, making it a critical test of how modern societies navigate the complexities of communication and accountability.
