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

The Democracy for All Project

The Democracy for All Project

American democracy faces growing polarization and extremism, disinformation is sowing chaos and distrust of election results, and public discourse has become increasingly toxic. According to most rankings, America is no longer considered a full democracy. Many experts now believe American democracy is becoming more autocratic than democratic. What does the American public think of these developments? As Keith Melville and I have noted, existing research has little to say about the deeper causes of these trends and how they are experienced across partisan and cultural divides. The Democracy for All Project, a new partnership of the Kettering Foundation and Gallup Inc., is an annual survey and research initiative designed to address that gap by gaining a comprehensive understanding of how citizens are experiencing democracy and identifying opportunities to achieve a democracy that works for everyone.

A Nuanced Exploration of Democracy and Its Challenges

Keep ReadingShow less
America Is Not a Place, It’s an Epic Road Trip
empty curved road
Photo by Holden Baxter on Unsplash

America Is Not a Place, It’s an Epic Road Trip

Despite its size, Afghanistan has only a single highway running through it. It’s called National Highway 1, or Ring Road, and I spent a little time on it myself years ago. It has no major intersections, not really. Just 1,400 miles of dusty road that cuts through mountains and across minefields to connect small towns and ancient cities.

Over many decades, America helped build and rebuild Ring Road to support free trade and free movement throughout the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
A “Bad Time” To Be Latino in America

person handcuffed, statue of liberty

AI generated

A “Bad Time” To Be Latino in America

A new Pew Research Center survey reveals that most Latinos in the United States disapprove of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration and the economy during his second term, underscoring growing pessimism within one of the nation’s fastest-growing demographic groups. Conducted in October, the survey highlights widespread concerns about deportation efforts, financial insecurity, and the broader impact of Trump’s policies on Hispanic communities.

Key Findings from the Pew Survey
  • 65% disapprove of Trump’s immigration policies, citing heightened deportation efforts and increased immigration enforcement in local communities.
  • About four-in-five Latinos say Trump’s policies harm Hispanics, a higher share than during his first term.
  • 61% of Latinos believe Trump’s economic policies have worsened conditions, with nearly half reporting struggles to pay for food, housing, or medical expenses in the past year.
  • 68% feel their overall situation has declined in the past year, marking one of the bleakest assessments in nearly two decades of Pew surveys.

Immigration Enforcement and Fear of Deportation

The study found that about half of Latinos worry they or someone close to them might be deported, reflecting heightened anxiety amid intensified immigration raids and arrests. Many respondents reported that enforcement actions had occurred in their local areas within the past six months. This fear has contributed to a sense of vulnerability, particularly among mixed-status families where U.S. citizens live alongside undocumented relatives.

Keep ReadingShow less