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.
David Pozen, Columbia Law
Amy Kapczynski, Yale Law
Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law
Moderated byGenevieve Lakier, Knight First Amendment Institute
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University