Article Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "pk": 59605,
    "title": "The Price of Disinformation",
    "subtitle": null,
    "abstract": "<p>The general public is misinformed on a broad range of vitally important topics, such as what the true crime rates are, whether the COVID-19 vaccine is part of a conspiracy to control the population, and who won the last presidential election. There are myriad factors contributing to this epistemic crisis wherein large segments of the public form false belief on these and other major issues. One factor is the vast amount of intentionally false speech disseminated to mislead the public, often termed “disinformation.” Leaders in politics, industry, and the media spread disinformation for their own self-serving purposes. These purposes include turning a profit, growing an audience, and getting elected to office. Although the law prohibits “fraud,” the legal definition of that term—that determines to a great extent the scope of which deceptions are actionable and which are protected speech—is narrowly focused on personal fraud. Schemes to defraud that are aimed at the public at large, by contrast, are rarely labeled “fraud” and are often protected under the First Amendment. Accordingly, disinformation is often allowed by law, despite the fact that (1) it is often knowingly false and disseminated for profit or advantage, and (2) it harms individuals or society. These harms include millions of deaths from tobacco, opioids, lead, and sugar; environmental destruction from climate change; and threats to democratic institutions. This Article highlights the difficult First Amendment issues posed by disinformation and argues that, in the search for solutions, we must consider the staggering amount of harm caused by disinformation. No adequate solution has yet been found for the mass proliferation of false and misleading claims, which is worse in today’s digital world than ever before. Indeed, given the complex and multi-faceted nature of the issue, any solution to it must be carefully tailored to regulate only narrow and well-defined categories of speech that are or should be unprotected, while carefully protecting the bedrock constitutional right to freedom of expression. But at the same time, the discussion around how to solve this problem must take into account the injuries caused by allowing unfettered self-serving falsehoods to be spread by those who hold the public megaphone.</p>",
    "language": null,
    "license": {
        "name": "",
        "short_name": "",
        "text": null,
        "url": ""
    },
    "keywords": [],
    "section": "Article",
    "is_remote": true,
    "remote_url": "https://escholarship.org/uc/item/98x1w7xg",
    "frozenauthors": [
        {
            "first_name": "Wes",
            "middle_name": "",
            "last_name": "Henricksen",
            "name_suffix": "",
            "institution": "",
            "department": ""
        }
    ],
    "date_submitted": null,
    "date_accepted": null,
    "date_published": "2025-12-03T06:17:00Z",
    "render_galley": null,
    "galleys": [
        {
            "label": "PDF",
            "type": "pdf",
            "path": "https://journalpub.escholarship.org/ucilr/article/59605/galley/45589/download/"
        }
    ]
}