"false speech" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to the act of telling lies or inaccurate information either verbally or in written form. For example, "He was charged with perjury for making false speech under oath."
The point, of course, is not that false speech intrinsically deserves protection, see Gertz, 418 U.S., at 340, 94 S.Ct., at 3007, but that the burdening of unintentional false speech potentially chills truthful speech.
The recognized constitutional remedy for false speech, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously said, is not suppression but "more speech".
Mr. Libby also acknowledged that the government may punish false speech that is intended to obtain something of value.
A lot of times when trans women try to change their voices, they go into false speech.
Thus, the state interest in compensating injury resulting from false speech must be vindicated by means that are narrowly tailored to avoid this deleterious result.
Any law punishing false speech must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, which the Stolen Valor Act is not.
The answer to erroneous, false, untrue, speech, or speech you just plain don't like, is MORE speech.
"The actual malice standard is a necessary and a sufficient standard for regulating false campaign speech," Justice Madsen wrote.
"We can't expect that voters are so stupid that they need the government's help to decide what is true or false political speech".
In a brief concurring opinion, Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander said the flaw in the law was that it penalized false "nondefamatory speech," meaning statements that do not injure reputation.
"We can't expect that voters are so stupid," he said, "that they need the government's help to decide what is true or false political speech".
