What do you think?
Rate this book
Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics―and How to Cure It
An informed and practical road map for controlling disinformation, embracing free speech, saving American elections, and protecting democracy
“Hasen puts forth a number of solid recommendations on how to combat disinformation.”—Richard Stengel, New York Times
“Hasen has written an extraordinary, thorough and fair examination of the impact of misinformation on democracy.”—Jeff Kosseff, Lawfare
What can be done consistent with the First Amendment to ensure that American voters can make informed election decisions and hold free elections amid a flood of virally spread disinformation and the collapse of local news reporting? How should American society counter the actions of people like former President Donald J. Trump, who used social media to convince millions of his followers to doubt the integrity of U.S. elections and helped foment a violent insurrection? What can we do to minimize disinformation campaigns aimed at suppressing voter turnout?
With piercing insight into the current debates over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s responsibilities, Richard L. Hasen proposes legal and social measures to restore Americans’ access to reliable information on which democracy depends. In an era when quack COVID treatments and bizarre QAnon theories have entered mainstream, this book explains how to assure both freedom of ideas and a commitment to truth.
“Hasen puts forth a number of solid recommendations on how to combat disinformation.”—Richard Stengel, New York Times
“Hasen has written an extraordinary, thorough and fair examination of the impact of misinformation on democracy.”—Jeff Kosseff, Lawfare
What can be done consistent with the First Amendment to ensure that American voters can make informed election decisions and hold free elections amid a flood of virally spread disinformation and the collapse of local news reporting? How should American society counter the actions of people like former President Donald J. Trump, who used social media to convince millions of his followers to doubt the integrity of U.S. elections and helped foment a violent insurrection? What can we do to minimize disinformation campaigns aimed at suppressing voter turnout?
With piercing insight into the current debates over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s responsibilities, Richard L. Hasen proposes legal and social measures to restore Americans’ access to reliable information on which democracy depends. In an era when quack COVID treatments and bizarre QAnon theories have entered mainstream, this book explains how to assure both freedom of ideas and a commitment to truth.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published March 8, 2022
37 people are currently reading
1128 people want to read
About the author
Richard L. Hasen
28 books38 followersRichard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In 2013 he was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal, and his previous books include Voting Wars, Plutocrats United, and The Justice of Contradictions. He lives in Studio City, CA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 1, 2022
The problem
It is definitely my own fault for reading this book hoping for a "magic bullet" that would solve our problems with intentionally misleading or outright lying “speech”, but I am nonetheless a tad disappointed that one does not – unsurprisingly, really – exist!
For a good part of this well-written – and well-reasoned and -argued – book, professor Hasen does a masterful job reviewing how our present morass of duplicitous -- even truly evil – “speech” has come about. And, for anyone not paying attention, or too young to have been present at the dual “creation-events” of the ending of the fairness doctrine requiring that media portray both or all sides fairly and the rise of provocative talk radio, this bulk of the book can serve as a convenient, if continually depressing, review of that development.
But the fundamental cause of our predicament, as he makes clear, is the fact that for millions of our fellow citizens what they desire in “media” or “new” is not to understand – or, in the classic sense, to become informed – but, rather, to be reinforced in their own belief systems. In other words, many want cult reaffirmation rather than anything approaching objective information.
As long as this remains a significant goal of so many, it will be impossible for so-called cheap speech to vanish or, for that matter, to be significantly reduced in either presence or impact.
And we really are talking about cheap speech here! “Cheap” in content – often tawdry, even sleazy, with no wish to have anything to do about what is “true” or “real” but, rather, it exists purely to titillate, to justify, to give permission for its “consumers” to give free vent to their base prejudices and rage.
Historical Perspectives [my thoughts, not those of Hasen’s]
As we know, the Founders so-valued freedom of the press and freedom of speech that they forbade the government from attempting to restrict them.
Now while the Founders had no idea of – and no way of anticipating – the depth to which so-called “speech” could descend, they were well aware that much of what was alleged – in actual speech or in the press – was, to put it kindly, a distortion of the facts. (In truth, much of what some of them wrote about the British government and about its king strayed quite a distance from provable fact.) But they believed that it was through the public airing of speech – factual or otherwise – that the truth could be eventually known. After all, rumors and distortions would only continue in other venues if they sought to prevent its presence in printed atter.
Their confidence – in light of today’s realities I believe it would be more accurate to say their hope – was because they believed in the ability of the common citizen to ultimately discern what was truth and what should be believed because of the competition of ideas. In other words, falsehood would be revealed by the sunlight of open debate.
Certainly the newspapers of the 18th and 19th centuries were often far from being repositories of “truth.” In fact, even from the beginning of our Republic many newspapers openly aligned themselves with the positions taken by leading figures, such as Hamilton on the one side and Jefferson on the other. Citizens purchased such newspapers knowing – or, at least, soon finding out – which person or side the editors favored. And there was much that was scandalous and scurrilous in their pages, too, some of which might still be able to shock – at least a little bit – today’s citizens.
And certainly during the decades immediately preceding our Civil War, newspapers (and other publications, letters and diaries) of both the North and South increasingly portrayed the “other side” as not only lacking in such things as virtue and truthfulness, but also as being part of a “plot” to undermine the very “civilization” of the other.
In my opinion, we have reached a similar time in the way that people choose and support their sources of “news” and “speech” in our own time. We don’t just disagree with each other; too many of us fear and deeply dislike each other, especially in the guise of the cartoonish and stylized manner that propagandists on both sides like to portray us.
It is imperative to note that this demonizing and distorting is especially central to the much more prolific sources of the far Right. For all their many faults – including areas of blindness to the truth of some of the charges hurled at them – liberals need fact-based truths in order to build the open societies they yearn for while the forces of the Right (including the populist-nationalists most prominent in the US today) need disorder and distrust if they are to succeed.
In Search of Solutions
There is no “magic bullet.” Professor Hasen runs through a number of measures that, while sounding eminently reasonable to me, have either been overturned by today’s Supreme Court or are likely to soon be. These include such things as requiring transparency for all who contribute to political candidates and to foundations or alleged “think-tanks” that in fact exist to influence and shape public opinion and political issues, to limit the ability of the wealthiest to essentially “buy” the candidates they know will advance their policies, and the reimplementation of a Fairness Doctrine reconfigured to address the proliferation of electronic media in today’s world.
There are other measures that he “hopes” would be favorably considered, including changes to the operation of such social “platforms” as Facebook and the like. He acknowledges, however, that given their profit imperative it is unlikely that such will be voluntarily accepted and, in light of today’s Supreme Court tilt to the Right, most likely to be unacceptable in law, either.
He also notes that the continuing drumbeat for greater “free speech for conservatives” is really an attempt to coerce institutions into mandating as acceptable “speech” things that are antithetical to their missions. The Right is attempting to use their enhanced electoral and judicial majorities to entrench their positions as legitimate, even when many of them are ill-supported by facts or evidence.
Conclusion
For myself, I do not expect any significant change in the tone or content of our “speech” until such time – if ever – that a sizable majority of Americans decide that the proliferation of lies, disinformation, and the encouragement of rage and hate is antithetical to the continued existence of a democratic republic.
A caveat: There is no historical basis for concluding that the “good guys and gals” will prevail in the end. Autocracies have often arisen from the ashes of democracies, including in our own time. There is no divine assurance that the United States is exempt from the irrationality of human beings.
It is definitely my own fault for reading this book hoping for a "magic bullet" that would solve our problems with intentionally misleading or outright lying “speech”, but I am nonetheless a tad disappointed that one does not – unsurprisingly, really – exist!
For a good part of this well-written – and well-reasoned and -argued – book, professor Hasen does a masterful job reviewing how our present morass of duplicitous -- even truly evil – “speech” has come about. And, for anyone not paying attention, or too young to have been present at the dual “creation-events” of the ending of the fairness doctrine requiring that media portray both or all sides fairly and the rise of provocative talk radio, this bulk of the book can serve as a convenient, if continually depressing, review of that development.
But the fundamental cause of our predicament, as he makes clear, is the fact that for millions of our fellow citizens what they desire in “media” or “new” is not to understand – or, in the classic sense, to become informed – but, rather, to be reinforced in their own belief systems. In other words, many want cult reaffirmation rather than anything approaching objective information.
As long as this remains a significant goal of so many, it will be impossible for so-called cheap speech to vanish or, for that matter, to be significantly reduced in either presence or impact.
And we really are talking about cheap speech here! “Cheap” in content – often tawdry, even sleazy, with no wish to have anything to do about what is “true” or “real” but, rather, it exists purely to titillate, to justify, to give permission for its “consumers” to give free vent to their base prejudices and rage.
Historical Perspectives [my thoughts, not those of Hasen’s]
As we know, the Founders so-valued freedom of the press and freedom of speech that they forbade the government from attempting to restrict them.
Now while the Founders had no idea of – and no way of anticipating – the depth to which so-called “speech” could descend, they were well aware that much of what was alleged – in actual speech or in the press – was, to put it kindly, a distortion of the facts. (In truth, much of what some of them wrote about the British government and about its king strayed quite a distance from provable fact.) But they believed that it was through the public airing of speech – factual or otherwise – that the truth could be eventually known. After all, rumors and distortions would only continue in other venues if they sought to prevent its presence in printed atter.
Their confidence – in light of today’s realities I believe it would be more accurate to say their hope – was because they believed in the ability of the common citizen to ultimately discern what was truth and what should be believed because of the competition of ideas. In other words, falsehood would be revealed by the sunlight of open debate.
Certainly the newspapers of the 18th and 19th centuries were often far from being repositories of “truth.” In fact, even from the beginning of our Republic many newspapers openly aligned themselves with the positions taken by leading figures, such as Hamilton on the one side and Jefferson on the other. Citizens purchased such newspapers knowing – or, at least, soon finding out – which person or side the editors favored. And there was much that was scandalous and scurrilous in their pages, too, some of which might still be able to shock – at least a little bit – today’s citizens.
And certainly during the decades immediately preceding our Civil War, newspapers (and other publications, letters and diaries) of both the North and South increasingly portrayed the “other side” as not only lacking in such things as virtue and truthfulness, but also as being part of a “plot” to undermine the very “civilization” of the other.
In my opinion, we have reached a similar time in the way that people choose and support their sources of “news” and “speech” in our own time. We don’t just disagree with each other; too many of us fear and deeply dislike each other, especially in the guise of the cartoonish and stylized manner that propagandists on both sides like to portray us.
It is imperative to note that this demonizing and distorting is especially central to the much more prolific sources of the far Right. For all their many faults – including areas of blindness to the truth of some of the charges hurled at them – liberals need fact-based truths in order to build the open societies they yearn for while the forces of the Right (including the populist-nationalists most prominent in the US today) need disorder and distrust if they are to succeed.
In Search of Solutions
There is no “magic bullet.” Professor Hasen runs through a number of measures that, while sounding eminently reasonable to me, have either been overturned by today’s Supreme Court or are likely to soon be. These include such things as requiring transparency for all who contribute to political candidates and to foundations or alleged “think-tanks” that in fact exist to influence and shape public opinion and political issues, to limit the ability of the wealthiest to essentially “buy” the candidates they know will advance their policies, and the reimplementation of a Fairness Doctrine reconfigured to address the proliferation of electronic media in today’s world.
There are other measures that he “hopes” would be favorably considered, including changes to the operation of such social “platforms” as Facebook and the like. He acknowledges, however, that given their profit imperative it is unlikely that such will be voluntarily accepted and, in light of today’s Supreme Court tilt to the Right, most likely to be unacceptable in law, either.
He also notes that the continuing drumbeat for greater “free speech for conservatives” is really an attempt to coerce institutions into mandating as acceptable “speech” things that are antithetical to their missions. The Right is attempting to use their enhanced electoral and judicial majorities to entrench their positions as legitimate, even when many of them are ill-supported by facts or evidence.
Conclusion
For myself, I do not expect any significant change in the tone or content of our “speech” until such time – if ever – that a sizable majority of Americans decide that the proliferation of lies, disinformation, and the encouragement of rage and hate is antithetical to the continued existence of a democratic republic.
A caveat: There is no historical basis for concluding that the “good guys and gals” will prevail in the end. Autocracies have often arisen from the ashes of democracies, including in our own time. There is no divine assurance that the United States is exempt from the irrationality of human beings.
March 12, 2024
A succinct, yet thorough examination of a narrowly defined question: How can we overcome the dangers to our elections posed by a rise in “Cheap Speech” and disinformation?
The problem: The way people get their news and information in the age of Facebook, bots, and Trumpists has put our elections (and by extension, our democracy) at risk.
The solution: A combination of both legal and private actions to promote disclosure, hold bad actors accountable, and bolster legitimate media sources.
I appreciated how Hansen gets straight to the point and offers a series of specific actions to remedy the problem. The only problem—with the rise of hyperpartisanship and our radically conservative Supreme Court, nearly all of these suggested actions (as common sense as they are) are very unlikely to succeed. How fittingly depressing!
Still, this is a book everyone who cares about protecting American democracy should read.
The problem: The way people get their news and information in the age of Facebook, bots, and Trumpists has put our elections (and by extension, our democracy) at risk.
The solution: A combination of both legal and private actions to promote disclosure, hold bad actors accountable, and bolster legitimate media sources.
I appreciated how Hansen gets straight to the point and offers a series of specific actions to remedy the problem. The only problem—with the rise of hyperpartisanship and our radically conservative Supreme Court, nearly all of these suggested actions (as common sense as they are) are very unlikely to succeed. How fittingly depressing!
Still, this is a book everyone who cares about protecting American democracy should read.
March 10, 2022
This is a fantastic book and definitely worth the read. It’s short and sweet, and I finished it in less than a day. I grabbed a copy because it looked like this one was going to dive into some of the legal conversations around Big Tech and free speech, and Richard Hasen did an excellent job with that. The title of the book is an interesting concept that comes from an old paper, and the author discusses how it pertains to current events of misinformation spreading worse than ever on social media. Hasen also ties in with the origin of “lemon laws” and discusses the economic theory and potential issues.
The only thing I’m struggling with when reviewing this book is asking myself, “Did this deserve an entire book?” It’s hard to say. On one hand, like most of the books on misinformation and Big Tech, many of the stories and conversations from this book have already been discussed extensively. On the other hand, the author brought up plenty of talking points that I hadn’t thought of or come across, but it’s possible that this could have been consolidated into a lengthy think piece. At the end of the day, I do recommend this book, but it’s hard to compete with one of my recent favorite books on the topic System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot.
The only thing I’m struggling with when reviewing this book is asking myself, “Did this deserve an entire book?” It’s hard to say. On one hand, like most of the books on misinformation and Big Tech, many of the stories and conversations from this book have already been discussed extensively. On the other hand, the author brought up plenty of talking points that I hadn’t thought of or come across, but it’s possible that this could have been consolidated into a lengthy think piece. At the end of the day, I do recommend this book, but it’s hard to compete with one of my recent favorite books on the topic System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot.
January 26, 2023
'Cheap speech': "the drastically decreased costs of disseminating written, audio, and visual content, which would create radical new opportunities for readers, viewers, and listeners to custom-design what they read, see, and hear, while undermining the power of intermediaries, including publishers and bookstore owners".
That, in a nutshell, is claimed to be the root of our problems. The economics of cheap speech "have undermined the mediating and stabilizing institutions of American democracy, including newspapers and political parties, a situation that has had severe social and political consequences for American elections". The overload of information has produced a market for lemons; propaganda is spread for financial purposes; local newspapers die and corruption spreads; and political parties are bystanders to the rise of demagogues who appeal directly, repeatedly, and without cost to voters.
Hasen then narrows down on the US elections of 2016 and 2020, as he is a legal scholar of elections and constitutional law. His aim is to show how all this cheap speech and fake news has distorted the free and fair elections in the US, and how things might even get worse. In part 3, his expertise really shines when he carefully treads what possible legislative solutions could be thought of. Several solutions enter the fray, from legislating big tech, to competent election administration, disclosure rules of who is paying for ads, to the narrow elimination of fake information about where to vote.
As a non-expert in all these matters, what is well done is that he clearly acknowledges that these are rather minimal solutions that won't fix everything. Even worse, they might not even stand political and legal scrutiny, as claims of censorship, or violations of the First Amendment are never far away. Readers who are not into the legal overviews still get the picture: tread carefully, because it does not take long before one enters risky territory where one could make matters worse.
For this same reason, Hasen goes 'beyond law' - a commendable move. There, he argues there might be two short-term solutions that do not rely on legislation and this risky First Amendment territory. The first is to put public pressure on social media companies, who might resort to self-regulation. Free to moderate the content on their platforms, they can play a big role themselves, either by improving their algorithms, de-platforming violators, or removing speech. The same concerns pop up, obviously, but now a social media company is to blame, rather than politicians. A second solution is to fund local journalists. Go philantropists!
Yet, acknowledging that this might again not be enough, he ends with more longer-term solutions such as 'instilling trust in media, rule of law, science through education'. 'Building better democratic institutions'. Here, it seems as if he is slowly realizing that social media is not the key enemy, and perhaps only an amplifier. Quoting a sentence saying "stemming the flood of disinformation is unlikely to be aided by regulating social media, fact-checking, or improving media literacy ... That solutions lie in *repairing the basic functioning of democratic institutions themselves*". He also argues himself that "it is important not to overstate claims about the utility of social media reform or see the cheap speech problem as only about social media"
So after a long foray, he comes to perhaps the most interesting conclusion: that the actual problem might not be social media after all, but rather the eroding trust in democratic institutions, such as journalism, the courts, experts, universities, and political parties themselves. Unfortunately, Hasen finds himself in a bind, as it was exactly cheap speech that was introduced as laying at the basis of the erosion of these institutions. So.. it was social media after all? He seems to end, therefore, on a vague and rather pessimistic tone, calling for better education, and restoring and upkeeping of democratic norms from within these institutions. Journalists, do better. Lawyers, do better. Politicians, etc. Take back the authority to claim 'the Truth'!
In doing so, 'Cheap speech' inscribes itself in a broader contemporary tradition of books on fake news and post-truth that look in similar directions. As Farkas & Schou noticed in their study on Post-Truth, Fake News and Democracy: Mapping the Politics of Falsehood, all these books see fake news as a virus; a poison that sickens our population, society, democracy, so we need to weed it out. Solutions then focus on either stopping the spread (through legislation or self-regulation by social media platforms) which might not work and might even worsen claims of censorship. Or if the falsehoods have spread already, look at how to counter it with more fact-checks, or by educating our people to recognize the falsities.
All this denies the 'demand side' for fake news. Politicians, fake news organizations, and media corporations (traditional and social) keep claiming and amplifying falsehoods because there is an audience that wants to hear it (and grants them money or political power). An audience that does not trust that experts, media, courts, or scholars somehow have the authority to distinguish what is right and wrong. They distrust these former trust authorities themselves, making the 'fake news' not so fake for them at all. For years, populist politicians have been spreading not only fake news and lies, but have discredited the mass media, rule of law upholders, university professors, experts as left-wing, liberal biased elites (who are often times into some kind of grand conspiracy). Hasen writes this himself on p. 136:
"The anti-elitist, neopopulist rhetoric against the free press, the media, the courts, the FBI, the "deep state", higher education, and of course the main opposition political party fueled a hyperpolarized demand for more content fitting the worldview being sold to them. |...| some people wanted affirmance, not truth. And there were ample reasons to give it to them."
Sick of years of same-same center politics (markedly too liberal in economic policy, for one) many people found these calls convincing. So the moment we start seeing post-truth politics, fake news and disinformation as a continuation and apex moment of the populist revolt that started years ago, we can stop panicking about this sudden virus that has slipped into our democracies. It would rather push us to think about what actually caused that populist revolt itself. While social media definitely has some role to play, I bet the answer will be a bit more complex, and perhaps unconvenient for some.
That, in a nutshell, is claimed to be the root of our problems. The economics of cheap speech "have undermined the mediating and stabilizing institutions of American democracy, including newspapers and political parties, a situation that has had severe social and political consequences for American elections". The overload of information has produced a market for lemons; propaganda is spread for financial purposes; local newspapers die and corruption spreads; and political parties are bystanders to the rise of demagogues who appeal directly, repeatedly, and without cost to voters.
Hasen then narrows down on the US elections of 2016 and 2020, as he is a legal scholar of elections and constitutional law. His aim is to show how all this cheap speech and fake news has distorted the free and fair elections in the US, and how things might even get worse. In part 3, his expertise really shines when he carefully treads what possible legislative solutions could be thought of. Several solutions enter the fray, from legislating big tech, to competent election administration, disclosure rules of who is paying for ads, to the narrow elimination of fake information about where to vote.
As a non-expert in all these matters, what is well done is that he clearly acknowledges that these are rather minimal solutions that won't fix everything. Even worse, they might not even stand political and legal scrutiny, as claims of censorship, or violations of the First Amendment are never far away. Readers who are not into the legal overviews still get the picture: tread carefully, because it does not take long before one enters risky territory where one could make matters worse.
For this same reason, Hasen goes 'beyond law' - a commendable move. There, he argues there might be two short-term solutions that do not rely on legislation and this risky First Amendment territory. The first is to put public pressure on social media companies, who might resort to self-regulation. Free to moderate the content on their platforms, they can play a big role themselves, either by improving their algorithms, de-platforming violators, or removing speech. The same concerns pop up, obviously, but now a social media company is to blame, rather than politicians. A second solution is to fund local journalists. Go philantropists!
Yet, acknowledging that this might again not be enough, he ends with more longer-term solutions such as 'instilling trust in media, rule of law, science through education'. 'Building better democratic institutions'. Here, it seems as if he is slowly realizing that social media is not the key enemy, and perhaps only an amplifier. Quoting a sentence saying "stemming the flood of disinformation is unlikely to be aided by regulating social media, fact-checking, or improving media literacy ... That solutions lie in *repairing the basic functioning of democratic institutions themselves*". He also argues himself that "it is important not to overstate claims about the utility of social media reform or see the cheap speech problem as only about social media"
So after a long foray, he comes to perhaps the most interesting conclusion: that the actual problem might not be social media after all, but rather the eroding trust in democratic institutions, such as journalism, the courts, experts, universities, and political parties themselves. Unfortunately, Hasen finds himself in a bind, as it was exactly cheap speech that was introduced as laying at the basis of the erosion of these institutions. So.. it was social media after all? He seems to end, therefore, on a vague and rather pessimistic tone, calling for better education, and restoring and upkeeping of democratic norms from within these institutions. Journalists, do better. Lawyers, do better. Politicians, etc. Take back the authority to claim 'the Truth'!
In doing so, 'Cheap speech' inscribes itself in a broader contemporary tradition of books on fake news and post-truth that look in similar directions. As Farkas & Schou noticed in their study on Post-Truth, Fake News and Democracy: Mapping the Politics of Falsehood, all these books see fake news as a virus; a poison that sickens our population, society, democracy, so we need to weed it out. Solutions then focus on either stopping the spread (through legislation or self-regulation by social media platforms) which might not work and might even worsen claims of censorship. Or if the falsehoods have spread already, look at how to counter it with more fact-checks, or by educating our people to recognize the falsities.
All this denies the 'demand side' for fake news. Politicians, fake news organizations, and media corporations (traditional and social) keep claiming and amplifying falsehoods because there is an audience that wants to hear it (and grants them money or political power). An audience that does not trust that experts, media, courts, or scholars somehow have the authority to distinguish what is right and wrong. They distrust these former trust authorities themselves, making the 'fake news' not so fake for them at all. For years, populist politicians have been spreading not only fake news and lies, but have discredited the mass media, rule of law upholders, university professors, experts as left-wing, liberal biased elites (who are often times into some kind of grand conspiracy). Hasen writes this himself on p. 136:
"The anti-elitist, neopopulist rhetoric against the free press, the media, the courts, the FBI, the "deep state", higher education, and of course the main opposition political party fueled a hyperpolarized demand for more content fitting the worldview being sold to them. |...| some people wanted affirmance, not truth. And there were ample reasons to give it to them."
Sick of years of same-same center politics (markedly too liberal in economic policy, for one) many people found these calls convincing. So the moment we start seeing post-truth politics, fake news and disinformation as a continuation and apex moment of the populist revolt that started years ago, we can stop panicking about this sudden virus that has slipped into our democracies. It would rather push us to think about what actually caused that populist revolt itself. While social media definitely has some role to play, I bet the answer will be a bit more complex, and perhaps unconvenient for some.
May 11, 2022
I saw author Richard Hasen on CNN and decided to pre-order Cheap Speech months ahead of its release. Hasen is American’s foremost authority on election law, educated entirely in Los Angeles and he knows his stuff. This book is a wake-up call for saving our democracy. Speech can be used as a weapon, as we’ve seen with Donald Trump during his reign of terror. The consequences can be devastating, even deadly. Hasen breaks it down, underscoring how technology in the 21st century has enabled bad actors, like Trump (though definitely not limited to the Orange Scourge), to outright lie and slander and misinform. This damages democracy and the trust that people have in our institutions and media. Cheap Speech might inspire its readers to deal more truthfully and to make every word count, whether written or spoken or published. Words matter. Cheap Speech helps to not only identify those words that are only intended to deceive or malign, but also to do better in everyday communication during a politically polarized era. Educators, read it. Armchair politicians, read it. Politicians and others in the political area, read it and then take a good look in the mirror. You can live a life of integrity and public service or you can wallow in the squalor of lies and self-dealing. Thank you, Mr. Hasen for laying out this paradigm for positive change in our politically divided society.
October 15, 2023
This was a specific look at the effects of misinformation and fake speech on American democracy, and boy it's not in a good state...The key takeaway from this for me was the importance of civic institutions, and in particular the importance of the judicial branch of government. Certainly concepts I've explored before and read about before (including discussion of s230 issues and First Amendment protections), but it was set out and written in a really clear way, with very structured discussion of the possible changes we can make. I think it could have gone slightly deeper in terms of discussion of cases and legal principles, but overall really great read on the subject.
October 11, 2022
Tries too hard to evenhanded, failing to shame and call out Republican, right-wing actions.
January 26, 2023
I came to this book to help build my personal case for why we need to refine our existing free speech jurisprudence. In my head, although it wouldn't be an easy distinction to draw, we need to treat what I'm calling "commercial speech" differently from the robust exchange of free ideas that we've long held as fundamental to democracy. The recent successful defamation cases against Alex Jones are a solid step in the right direction, but may not be comprehensive enough in the age of AI, deliberate distortion, and "news personalities" peddling conspiracy theories and supplements, all in one program.
As for this book itself? Meh, didn't even come close. The first 77 pages - nearly a third of the book - was simply recapping the current speech landscape, which, in my head, you are already attuned to prior to picking up the book. The section on what the law's role could do felt truncated and dumbed down to the point of being useless, and the section on extra-legal remedies again felt like it lacked true depth of thought and insight. It also limited itself solely to speech as it may impact elections directly, which seems like a far too narrow way of approaching the problem and creates a false sense that direct and indirect influence are two different types of speech.
To any First Amendment scholar who is reading this, please write the book we all need on this important subject.
As for this book itself? Meh, didn't even come close. The first 77 pages - nearly a third of the book - was simply recapping the current speech landscape, which, in my head, you are already attuned to prior to picking up the book. The section on what the law's role could do felt truncated and dumbed down to the point of being useless, and the section on extra-legal remedies again felt like it lacked true depth of thought and insight. It also limited itself solely to speech as it may impact elections directly, which seems like a far too narrow way of approaching the problem and creates a false sense that direct and indirect influence are two different types of speech.
To any First Amendment scholar who is reading this, please write the book we all need on this important subject.
March 13, 2022
This book is so incredibly essential. It's also dispiriting, seeing the constitutional and legal thickets in the way of solving problems that are obvious to everyone. But Hasen does what can reasonably be done, proposing sensible regulations that have at least some chance of surviving court challenges.
Actually, I very recently published a blog post on Know The System covering some similar ground. Not nearly as expertly as Hasen, for certain. Though, in it I vented my frustration at the perspective of legal scholars such as Redish & Pereyra who limit their thinking to legal remedies that fit safely within current frameworks and judicial philosophy. I think that brings the risk of limiting search to "under the lamppost." I'd love to see more radical ideas, recognizing of course that there is greater uncertainty as to whether they would be politically possible.
To his great credit, Hasen does widen the lens in his fourth chapter, "Beyond Law." He also is careful to not overstate claims about the utility of social media reform. But there is a lot that can be done to protect democracy, in the coming years and even the coming decades. Social media is going to be an important part of our society forever.
Actually, I very recently published a blog post on Know The System covering some similar ground. Not nearly as expertly as Hasen, for certain. Though, in it I vented my frustration at the perspective of legal scholars such as Redish & Pereyra who limit their thinking to legal remedies that fit safely within current frameworks and judicial philosophy. I think that brings the risk of limiting search to "under the lamppost." I'd love to see more radical ideas, recognizing of course that there is greater uncertainty as to whether they would be politically possible.
To his great credit, Hasen does widen the lens in his fourth chapter, "Beyond Law." He also is careful to not overstate claims about the utility of social media reform. But there is a lot that can be done to protect democracy, in the coming years and even the coming decades. Social media is going to be an important part of our society forever.
April 16, 2025
turned out to be a book about free speech - Not specifically per say but Hasen does a great job at exploring the "Lemon" problem in America. If Speech is so readily created and disinformation rampant, then it stands to reason that our trust in that information declines. The youth decides to reject the information understanding what is happening on some unconscious level and the elderly believe every word because the news has been historically trustworthy to them. These pitfalls create an almost perfect ecosystem for disinformation campaigns.
it got a little heavy on Law theory in the middle for my taste but still an insightful read
it got a little heavy on Law theory in the middle for my taste but still an insightful read
July 13, 2022
See an excerpt of my review at luckorcunning@blogspot.com or read the whole thing at https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/...
July 29, 2023
Very insightful
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews