Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-1-2022

Publication Source

Arizona Law Review

Abstract

A robust, principled application of the First Amendment produces contradictions that undermine the very justifications for free speech protections. Strong free speech protections are justified by the idea that rational, informed deliberation leads to peaceful decision-making, yet our marketplace of ideas is crowded with lies, reductive narratives, emotional appeals, and speech that leads to violence. Our current First Amendment model creates pathologies in discourse, which I term problems in speech quality and problems of speaker identity, that are exacerbated in our modern age of easy communication. The reason for these pathologies lies in the relationship between reason and emotion, both in human psychology and in First Amendment doctrine. This relationship is complex, and there are personal, psychological reasons that people are incentivized to engage in speech that is not truth-oriented. However, the solution to these speech pathologies is not to dramatically alter First Amendment doctrine, which, despite claims that the First Amendment is ill-equipped to deal with modern problems, is needed now more than ever.

Inclusive pages

307-338

Volume

64

Issue

2

Peer Reviewed

yes

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS