Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

AI and a marketplace of illusion and confusion

AI and a marketplace of illusion and confusion
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

The First Amendment protects a marketplace of ideas—ideally, speakers can freely offer information and the public audience can evaluate that information in light of other ideas, arguments, and proposals. This exchange has a clear goal: the maintenance of a deliberative democracy.


Content generated by AI will soon cause a catastrophic market failure, unless we act now to protect our ability to converse with and learn from one another. Two facts make that impending failure clear: first, in just three years, 90 percent of online content may be generated by AI; and, second, humans struggle--and will increasingly struggle as AI improves--to identify AI-generated speech.

The upshot is that our marketplace of ideas will soon be a marketplace of illusion and confusion. It’s time to establish a “Right to Reality.” Our main marketplaces– from Facebook to The New York Times--should have a legal obligation to label the extent to which content is altered by AI or “organic”--i.e., created by humans.

Though this Right to Reality may seem far fetched, it’s grounded in the core principles of the First Amendment. By way of example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that there’s a right to receive information. Justice Brennan, writing for the plurality in Board of Education v. Pico, argued that "[t]he right of freedom of speech and press embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addresses are not free to receive and consider them."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In an information ecosystem polluted by altered content “willing addresses” lack that freedom. For one, it’s nearly impossible to “receive” organic information if it requires sorting through mountains of AI-generated mis- and disinformation. Second, even if one stumbled across organic information in that setting, they may not know it because of the increasing capacity of AI tools to mirror organic content.

Astute readers may contest the Right to Reality on the basis that the First Amendment under the Federal Constitution only protects against government interference. That argument has some weight--though, as an aside, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment rights in some settings involving private actors. Nonetheless, to the extent the federal First Amendment is bounded, there’s another legal home for the Right to Reality--state constitutions.

Many state constitutions have distinct freedom of speech provisions that have been interpreted to afford greater protections. Case in point, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and assembly provisions under the state's constitution protected students distributing political leaflets at Princeton, a private university. The court explained that a limited private right of action may exist based on the typical use of the space, whether the public had been invited to use that space, and the purpose of the expressive activity in question. Courts in California, Pennsylvania, and beyond have reached similar conclusions.

There’s little denying that our modern public spheres, including social media platforms, fit the profile of a space that ought to be subject to regulation under such state constitutional speech provisions. Social media platforms are commonly and increasingly used to exchange political views and news, are designed to facilitate such exchange, and are generally open to the public.

The legal viability of the Right to Reality is also bolstered by its minimal impact on expressive activity. Unlike other provisions that have run afoul of freedom of speech protections, the Right to Reality would not remove any content from public forums but merely assist in the evaluation of that content. It’s also worth pointing out that the ability to evaluate the accuracy and origin of information serves several societal goals.

Our democracy cannot function if voters cannot confirm whether a candidate or a computer generated a message. Our children will struggle to mature into well-rounded citizens if they solely interact with altered content. Our collective capacity to challenge the status quo will collapse if we outsource our critical thinking to AI tools.

In short, it’s now or never for a right to reality.

Read More

Megan Thee Stallion in front of an audience waving "Kamala" signs

Singer Megan Thee Stallion performs at a Kamala Harris rally in Atlanta on July 30.

Julia Beverly/Getty Images

Do Charli XCX’s and Kid Rock’s endorsements make a difference? 19% of young people admit they might.

Longoria is an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.

British pop star Charli XCX sent many young people’s group text chats and social media feeds wild when she endorsed Kamala Harris by playing off a term she coined in a song, and posted on X, that “kamala IS brat.”

While this endorsement, which happened in July 2024, likely means very little to most adults who don’t follow the singer’s music, it is considered high praise among young people. Harris’ campaign astutely embraced Charli XCX’s support – temporarily changing the background of its X profile to the same shade of lime green that Charlie XCX favors.

Keep ReadingShow less
Department of Justice building
Bo Shen/Getty Images

Project 2025: The Department of Justice

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The preamble of the Constitution sets up our national aspiration of a government by “We the People” as the basis of a democratic republic predicated on “justice.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Rioters breached Capitol security and stormed the building Jan. 6 after attending a rally led by Donald Trump.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Is a presidential effort to overturn an election with force a new norm?

Nye is the president and CEO of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress and a former member of Congress from Virginia.

In the aftermath of his election defeat in 2020, President Donald Trump attempted to overturn an American presidential election, challenging our institutions to respond. Most notably, on Jan. 6, 2021, the president rallied an assembled crowd to march to the Capitol to halt the certification of the election, the final constitutional step in the electoral process. Members of the crowd dutifully marched to the Capitol, where hundreds of them assaulted police, broke into the building and disrupted the certification proceedings.

By attempting to overturn an election by any extra-judicial means — pressuring his vice president to stop the certification and inciting a mob into violent action — the president attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. Yet he remains a popular, if controversial, political figure, polling about even with his major party opponent in the 2024 presidential race.

This raises an important question: Did the country decide whether attempting to overturn an election by force is acceptable in our democracy?

Keep ReadingShow less
Red and blue fingers pointing at each other
PM Images/Getty Images

Maybe America needs a mom to call a time out

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

All of us have had that moment. An innocent comment over coffee with a friend, at a family dinner or while riding an elevator with a coworker. Everyone is at edge over politics. Nerves are rubbed raw. Civility has seemingly vanished.

When asked to rate the level of political division in the country on a scale of 0-100, where 0 is no division and 100 is the edge of a civil war, the mean response is 71, according to the Georgetown University Institute of Public Service. A similar share of Americans tell Pew they worry about political disagreements triggering more violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young woman voting

An Ohio State University votes in the 2022 election. A study by Tufts University says that by November, 8 million youth will have aged into the electorate since the 2022 midterms.

Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Surge in newly eligible young voters could swing the election

Ramakrishnan is a freelance journalist covering politics and culture.

Victoria Hinckley was set to graduate earlier this year from the University of South Florida but was instead expelled for participating in an encampment calling for her university to divest from businesses that have connections to Israel.

Hinckley, 22, calls it “an unfortunate situation” but fully believes in the power of student expression. If the past 10 months alone are any indication, America’s young voters are invested in current affairs and passionate in fighting for causes they believe in. This traditionally underestimated and undervalued segment of the electorate is slated to play a pivotal role in the 2024 election, with some saying that the youth vote can impact contested elections across the country.

But are Kamala Harris and Donald Trump aware of just how effective this electorate can be?

Keep ReadingShow less