Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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."

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

California’s Governor Race Is a Democratic Nightmare, But There’s One Easy Fix
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.

California’s Governor Race Is a Democratic Nightmare, But There’s One Easy Fix

A new Emerson College poll of California’s 2026 governor’s race confirms what many election observers have suspected. California is entering a high stakes primary season with no clear front runners, a crowded field, and an election system where the outcome often depends less on voter preference and more on mathematical luck.

Emerson poll

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social media apps on a phone

A Pentagon watchdog confirms senior officials shared sensitive military plans on Signal, risking U.S. troops. A veteran argues accountability is long overdue.

Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

There’s No Excuse for Signalgate

The Defense Department Inspector General just announced that information shared by Defense Secretary Hegseth in a Signal chat this spring could have indeed put U.S. troops, their mission, and national security in great peril. To recap, in an unforced error, our Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President conducted detailed discussions about an imminent military operation against Houthi targets in Yemen over Signal, a hackable commercial messaging app (that also does not comply with public record laws). These “professionals” accidentally added a journalist to the group chat, which meant the Editor-in-Chief of the Atlantic received real-time intelligence about a pending U.S. military strike, including exactly when bombs would begin falling on Yemeni targets. Had Houthi militants gotten their hands on this information, it would have been enough to help them better defend their positions if not actively shoot down the American pilots. This was a catastrophic breakdown in the most basic protocols governing sensitive information and technology. Nine months later, are we any safer?

As a veteran, I take their cavalier attitude towards national security personally. I got out of the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander after ten years as an aviator, a role that required survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training before ever deploying, in case I should ever get shot down. To think that the Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President could have so carelessly put these pilots in danger betrays the trust troops place in their Chain of Command while putting their lives on the line in the service of this country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ex‑Chief Justices Unite to Defend Judicial Independence
a wooden gaven sitting on top of a white counter
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Ex‑Chief Justices Unite to Defend Judicial Independence

On Tuesday, Bill of Rights Day, Keep Our Republic (KOR), a nonpartisan civic education organization committed to preserving American democracy, announces the launch of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices—a nonpartisan initiative committed to educating the public about the role of the judiciary and safeguarding the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founders.

Keep Our Republic’s Alliance of Former Chief Justices will lead a broad public-education effort, working with civic organizations, the media, educational institutions, policymakers, and the legal community to explain how courts function and why they matter. This outreach will highlight the constitutional role of courts, the importance of judicial independence, judges’ duty to apply the law impartially, and how the separation of powers protects Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

Keep ReadingShow less