In his plurality opinion in United States v. Alvarez, Justice Anthony Kennedy claimed that, “in a free society [the proper] remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.” The idea that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech underpins a great deal of First Amendment law. But when it comes to lies and deception, is it true? To what extent can speech—disclosures, warning labels, fact checks, apologies, and/or counterspeech generally—defang the lie? And to what extent may the government constitutionally require private speakers to engage in this kind of counterspeech under contemporary precedents? Is counterspeech a realistic solution to the problem of mass public deception today? These are the questions that this roundtable will address.

Featuring 

• David Pozen, Columbia Law
• Amy Kapczynski, Yale Law
• Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law

Moderated by Genevieve Lakier, Knight First Amendment Institute