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

Attorney General Summit

Orientation

Attorney General Summit

Orientation

18th Annual Rhode Island Attorney General Open Government Summit
JUL
29
8:30 am - 12:00 pm
RWU Law, Bristol, RI
LSAT Free Practice Test
AUG
05
10:00 am - 1:30 pm
RWU Law-- Appellate Courtroom (Room 283), 10 Metacom Avenue, Bristol, RI 02809
Incoming Student Orientation
AUG
10
All Day
RWU School of Law
Public Interest Potluck
SEP
09
4:30 pm - 6:30 pm
Law School Bistro
Surviving the Storm 2016: Employee Benefit Compliance & Employment Law Update
SEP
15
8:00 am - 12:30 pm
RWU School of Law, Providence Campus

Trending@RWULaw

07/19/2016
By Judge Netti Vogel
Later this month, Democrats will meet in Philadelphia to nominate a woman as the party’s candidate for president.  Unrelated to political partisanship, this historic event highlights the...


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.