The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that false statements made to harm someone's reputation constitute harassment, even when the target never hears them directly, and First Amendment protections do not apply to intentionally false speech, though opinions remain protected.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
What Arizona’s new harassment ruling means for youAdded:
Harassment only counts when someone says it to your face? Well, it turns out that may no longer be the case. You know, you don't have a right to harm somebody with your speech and and specially intentionally when you know your speech is false. This week the Arizona Supreme Court drew a line around what counts as harassment and it includes things said when you're not even there to hear it.
To break down what this ruling means for your rights and your words, I spoke with First Amendment attorney Greg Leslie from ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. You know, the the thing is the First Amendment protects uh your speech in so many ways, but once it's determined to be false and harmful, that's kind of where the protection ends.
>> This ruling centers around false statements, lies meant to damage your reputation or get you in trouble at work. In this case, justices looked at a father who told a teacher and principal damaging things about his child's mother who also worked at the school. And she ended up with a written warning in her file. You should have great First Amendment protections to be able to tell the truth to any anyone in an employment situation like that, but once you cross the line and in this case the judge determines that you actually were intentionally lying, um there's not going to be First Amendment protection for that. The court says this ruling is meant to protect the person being targeted even if they never hear the words themselves. But according to Leslie, for this ruling to really come into play, the speaker has to knowingly lie about that person. You know, it's it's all about what your motives were, what your intent was.
Now, as far as name-calling someone either to their face or behind their back, Leslie says that kind of rhetoric is harder to punish in a court of law because opinions are protected by the First Amendment, but false statements of fact are not. Live in the newsroom, I'm Stephen Serabia with Arizona's Family.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29











