Journal Article

First Amendment Imperialism and the Constitutionalization of Tort Liability

White, G Edward, Abraham, Kenneth S

2020

Overview

To what extent does the First Amendment impose limits on the permissible scope of tort liability? Until recently, the clear answer would have been, \"only under very limited circumstances. \" During the last few decades, however, the First Amendment has been so greatly expanding its empire that giving this answer is no longer possible. \"All bets are off\" would be a more accurate answer because the forms of speech to which the Supreme Court has extended First Amendment protection have become impressively broad. Although existing First Amendment restrictions on the permissible scope of tort liability currently are limited, the very existence of those restrictions confirms that many torts involving speech potentially are subject to First Amendment protection. And many torts do involve speech-the duty to warn about the dangers of prescription drugs, fraud, and even some forms of simple negligence are just a few examples. If the First Amendment of the future limited all or even many of these different constitutionally unprotectedforms of tort liability, then its scope would be pervasive. We contend, however, that neither existing First Amendment doctrine nor sensible constitutional policy supports extending free speech protection to torts that are accomplished through speech, except in extremely narrow circumstances. Extending First Amendment protection to such torts would aggravate what we argue are two of the principal risks posed by First Amendment imperialism: the erosion of the cultural distinction between truth and falsity, and devaluation of the status of speech about matters of public concern. Our contention is that most of the forms of speech involved in torts that are accomplished through speech currently are, and should remain, excluded from First Amendment protection. To support this contention, we examine the First Amendment's extension to previously unprotectedforms of speech over the last three-quarters of a century, compare the new First Amendment protections to the doctrinal elements of a series of torts that always or often are accomplished through speech, and argue that it would make little sense, as a matter of tort or constitutional law, to restrict liability for those torts on First Amendment grounds.

• Publisher: University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc
• Subject: Commercial speech / First Amendment-US / Freedom of speech / Imperialism / Law / Misappropriation of funds / Negligence / Prescription drugs / Products liability / Regulation / Sanctions / State court decisions / Torts