Cited as a source by the ProJo's PolitiFact column, Professor Jared Goldstein weighs in on a Rhode Island law that appears to make lying a misdemeanor.

Upcoming Events

 Law Immigration

 Law Immigration

Free Practice LSAT Test
AUG
25
10:00 am - 1:30 pm
RWU Law Experiential Campus, 1 Empire Street, 4th Floor, Providence, RI 02903
Public Interest Potluck
SEP
08
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
The Home of Laurie Barron & Dean Yelnosky
Info Session for Prospective Students
SEP
15
9:00 am - 12:00 pm
RWU Law- Main Campus, 10 Metacom Avenue, Bristol, RI 02809
Direct & Cross Examination Skills Program
SEP
27
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm
Federal Courthouse, One Exchange Terrace, Providence

Trending@RWULaw

08/17/2017
By Michael W. Donnelly-Boylen
Each year, I have the pleasure of welcoming the newest group of law students to Roger Williams University School of Law and introducing them to their classmates.  My staff and I read and...


Affordable Excellence at RWU LAW

Archives

Newsroom

Goldstein on 'Anti-Lying' Law

Cited as a source by the ProJo's PolitiFact column, Professor Jared Goldstein weighs in on a Rhode Island law that appears to make lying a misdemeanor.

From the PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: "You are now, mostly, free to lie on the Internet" by C. EUGENE EMERY JR. JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
   
June 25, 2012: [...] previously, you could have faced misdemeanor charges in Rhode Island, if you believe state Rep. Christopher Blazejewski, a Providence Democrat. On June 12, he told the Rhode Island House that it was illegal to transmit a lie on the Internet, on radio, on TV, or over the phone about anything.

Professor Jared Goldstein[...] Jared Goldstein, a law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, said the plain language of the law did “indeed appear to make it a crime to knowingly or intentionally send any false information over the Internet, without any limitation on the context or subject matter. If read literally, the language would seem to cover giving false information on a dating site. Or lying to a friend in an e-mail message. Or maybe even clicking ‘Like’ for a friend’s photo that you don’t really like.

“If the provision is read in that literal way,” he said, “it would almost certainly be unconstitutionally overbroad because it would prohibit a huge amount of constitutionally-protected speech. Even if it is not read that way, but construed narrowly to cover only false information that can constitutionally be prohibited, the law may still be unconstitutionally vague, because it doesn’t clearly tell the public what is prohibited.” [...]

For full story, click here.