Citizens United v Supreme Court ruling in favour of plutocracy.
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United on opensecrets.org website.
[W]here obscenity is not involved, we have consistently held that the determinations of: "what appeals to the 'prurient interest' or is 'patently offensive' ... are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists."
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission argued: 24-Mar-2009 decided 21-Jan-2010. Opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics (including lobbying, campaign finance, etc) by 5-4 judgment equating corporate spend with First Amendment (free speech) for the first time.
"Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."
Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." A rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. Allowing the media to avoid liability only by proving the truth of all injurious statements does not accord adequate protection to First Amendment liberties.
The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. Per Supreme Court Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA  passed by UK House of Lords (17-Oct-1985)
H.R.748 - CARES Act  legislated by the 116th House of Congress (2019-2020)
"Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also must appeal to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards, and it must describe sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way."
To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.
The First Amendment as it relates to libel laws, is that seditious libel – criticism of government and public officials – falls beyond the police power of the State [273-276]. In a democratic society such as ours, the citizen has the privilege of criticizing his government and its officials.
John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839 Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity" in the United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23
The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.