> As we shall see, the plurality in Alvarez [1] was myopic in focusing largely on established categories of cases, such as libel, in which false statements of fact can sometimes be regulated or sanctioned. In the modern era in particular, other false statements, falling well short of libel, can cause serious problems for individuals and society, even if they do not fit within established categories.
The quote below gives some context about "established categories of cases" [2]:
> As a general rule, content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only when confined to a few "historic and traditional categories of expression," such as speech likely to incite imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, "fighting words," child pornography, fraud, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat that the government has the power to prevent. [2]
> As we shall see, the plurality in Alvarez [1] was myopic in focusing largely on established categories of cases, such as libel, in which false statements of fact can sometimes be regulated or sanctioned. In the modern era in particular, other false statements, falling well short of libel, can cause serious problems for individuals and society, even if they do not fit within established categories.
The quote below gives some context about "established categories of cases" [2]:
> As a general rule, content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only when confined to a few "historic and traditional categories of expression," such as speech likely to incite imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, "fighting words," child pornography, fraud, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat that the government has the power to prevent. [2]
[1] https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
[2] https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...