Why the Citizens United decision is logically flawed

What is it about?

This short essay takes aim at a core assumption of Citizens United v FEC that there is no such thing as too much speech. Courts use this argument to justify non-intervention in cases of politically protected speech. If fake news is political, then it is hard to regulate. Yet, if politically protected speech is an absolute right, never to be infringed, it is possible to invalidate the assumption that the right can be enforced. The idea borrows from the Church Turing thesis and sets up a logical contradiction in systems of absolute rights. Drawing a parallel to the absence of absolute truth in systems of logical statements, one can show a self-contradiction in a system of absolute rights. From this, it follows that there is a condition of too much speech, for which regulation is justified, even as applied to politically protected speech. Setting aside all the usual exceptions, such as incitement to violence, fraud, and defamation, the need for intervention holds even for the truest most desirable speech. This implies a tighter boundary for regulation than courts have previously recognized. If true, the case for regulating false speech is, a fortiori, stronger still. Thus fake news should be easier to regulate than current laws admit. The conclusion also has direct application to Super PAC spending. In effect, certain boundaries on speech actually free the market for speech.

Featured Image

Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This article shows how certain limits on speech actually free the market for speech.