Idaho Considers Bill Making Certain Lies a Felony

Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would make knowingly spreading malicious lies about others a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines, raising serious questions about free speech protections and practical enforcement.

Quick Takes

Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle’s proposed legislation would criminalize publishing false statements made “with actual malice.”
The bill includes severe penalties: up to 5 years imprisonment, $100,000 fine, or both.
State officials would receive special protection with prosecution by the attorney general or county attorneys.
The House State Affairs Committee unanimously introduced the bill.
One lawmaker expressed concerns about constitutional challenges and potential prison overcrowding.

Proposed Legislation Targets Malicious Falsehoods

Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle has introduced legislation that would establish a felony offense for knowingly publishing false statements about another person with malicious intent. The bill, unanimously introduced by the House State Affairs Committee, specifically targets false statements made “with actual malice” – meaning the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. If passed, violators could face severe penalties including up to five years in prison, fines reaching $100,000, or both punishments combined.

During committee discussions, Moyle justified the legislation by comparing it to established restrictions on speech, such as the prohibition against falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The proposal would strengthen Idaho’s existing libel laws, which currently define libel as “malicious defamation” but impose relatively light penalties – a maximum $5,000 fine or up to six months in county jail. The significant increase in potential punishment reflects lawmakers’ determination to create more meaningful deterrents.

Bill introduced to create felony crime for malicious lies https://t.co/ubVzAafGIs

— KTVB.COM (@KTVB) February 24, 2025

Special Protections for State Officials and Restitution Requirements

A notable aspect of the proposed legislation is its provision for special handling of cases involving state officials. When false statements concern a state elected official or employee’s official conduct, the attorney general or county prosecuting attorney would have authority to pursue charges.

Beyond criminal penalties, the legislation would require convicted individuals to provide restitution to victims for specific costs incurred due to the false statements. This could include legal fees, reputation management expenses, or lost income resulting from damage to one’s reputation. The restitution requirement acknowledges that malicious falsehoods often create financial burdens for victims beyond emotional distress, forcing them to spend significant resources countering false narratives and repairing damaged reputations.

Constitutional Concerns and Practical Implementation Challenges

Despite unanimously agreeing to introduce the bill, at least one committee member expressed reservations about potential First Amendment conflicts. Representative Bruce Skaug highlighted these concerns, questioning whether such legislation could withstand constitutional scrutiny and suggesting a legal analysis should be done. The First Amendment traditionally provides broad protection for speech, with the Supreme Court historically setting high bars for restricting expression, even when that expression contains falsehoods.

Beyond constitutional questions, Skaug raised practical implementation concerns. “My concern is that if you make every liar a felon, then we’re going to be in a lot of trouble, not enough room in our jails,” he said.

Accountability and Free Expression

The proposal comes at a time when misinformation and its consequences are receiving increased national attention. Supporters argue that in today’s digital environment, where false information can spread rapidly and damage reputations instantly, stronger deterrents are necessary to protect individuals from malicious attacks.

Critics worry that criminalizing speech, even demonstrably false speech, could create a chilling effect on legitimate expression and debate. Concerns exist that the threat of felony charges might discourage citizens from speaking out about legitimate concerns regarding public officials for fear that contested factual claims might later be deemed malicious falsehoods.