不實言論是否因為其本身不實，就當然不受言論自由保障？美國最高法院過去案例認為，誹謗、詐欺與不實廣告，屬於低價值言論而保障有限，此外，美國法院並沒有說過所有不實言論均不受保障。2012年美國最高法院Alvarez案，首次提出，不實言論原則上仍受言論自由保障，但各大法官對於該採取何種審查標準，有不同意見。但大法官們均認為，就算為了避免不實言論之傷害，在管制時，仍應該加入主觀要件與客觀要件之限制。進而，該判決影響到其他不實競選言論之案例。就競選之不實言論，由於屬於政治性言論，法院採取嚴格審查，要求政府必須具有重大利益，且法規必須量身訂作。本文也比較臺灣類似不實言論之管制。本文特別針對社會秩序維護法第六十三條第五款的「散佈謠言影響公共安寧」，進行討論。由於該條文並沒有明文規定適用於哪一類主題的不實言論，導致被運用在選舉或對政府謾罵之主題。雖然若干法院所見解，自行加入了主客觀要件，但也不少法院裁定沒有嚴格遵守這樣主、客觀限制的限制，導致該條文被濫用。

Does false speech not protected by freedom of speech just because of its own falsity? According to the past cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, defamation, fraud, and false advertising were considered low-value statements with limited protection. Apart from these categories, the United States Court has not stated that all false statements are not protected. One example is the 2012 US Supreme Court Alvarez case in that it first proposed that the false statements in principle are still protected by freedom of speech. However, the Justices differed in the opinion regarding the types of scrutiny should be adopted. Most Justices believe that in the case of avoiding the damage of false statements, the restrictions of subjective and objective requirements should still be added to the regulation. The ruling on Alvarez casein has affected other cases concerning false statements in political campaigns. Specifically, because false statements in political campaign are considered political speech, the courts have adopted a strict censorship and scrutiny, requiring the government to have compelling interests, and the regulations must be tailored. Moreover, this article compares the control of similar false statements in Taiwan and discusses “spreading rumors affecting public peace” in Article 63, paragraph 5 of the Social Order Maintenance Law. Because the provision does not explicitly stipulate the kind of false statements are applicable to such regulation, it has been used in elections or attacks on government. Although some courts have added their own subjective and objective requirements in their opinion, this holding of subjective and objective restrictions did not shared by courts in other cases, leading to abuse of that provision.