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 Open Government Summit

Attorney General Open Government Summit

Pro Bono Collaborative Cocktail Reception
MAY
28
5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
One Citizens Plaza Rotunda, Providence, RI
Boston Law Alumni Networking Reception
JUN
03
6:00 pm - 7:30 pm
Highball Lounge, Boston
Class of 2018 "How to Prepare for Law School" BBQ/Mixer
JUN
12
11:00 am - 2:00 pm
RWU Law, 10 Metacom Avenue, Bristol, RI 02809
Law Alumni Association Annual Breakfast Meeting
JUN
18
7:45 am - 9:15 am
Rhode Island Convention Center, Providence
17th Annual Rhode Island Attorney General Open Government Summit
JUL
31
8:30 am - 12:00 pm
RWU School of Law, Bristol, RI

Trending@RWULaw

05/20/2015
By Tom Peterson, 2L
Having served 22 years in the Navy before coming to law school, some habits die harder than others. One thing that we always stressed during my time in the Navy was filing a Post Exercise report – or...


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.