While deepfakes have garnered significant attention as a threat to political speech, they are only one part of a broader issue in contemporary politics: the rise of outright lying. Politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are increasingly using falsehoods and misleading claims to sway public opinion, often with little consequence. This trend challenges the very foundations of democracy, which depends on an informed electorate making decisions based on accurate information. Social media platforms allow politicians to bypass traditional gatekeepers and directly engage with their audience. This creates a fertile ground for the dissemination of falsehoods, whether in the form of deepfakes or simply false statements. While platforms like X and Facebook have made some efforts to flag misleading content, their measures are often reactive rather than preventive. By the time a false claim is debunked, it may have already reached millions, shaping public opinion in harmful ways.

James Kirchick, in his article How Lying Became Disinformation, highlights how the rise of disinformation as a political tool has fundamentally altered the landscape of political discourse. He traces this back to Donald Trump’s early political career, particularly his persistent false claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. According to Kirchick, Trump has become synonymous with dishonesty, but his political opponents are not without fault. Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, misrepresented some of Trump’s past statements during a recent debate, including his remarks on neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and U.S. auto jobs, illustrating that the problem of dishonesty is widespread across the political spectrum. Kirchick’s argument points to a deeper problem: the conflation of lies and disinformation. Originally, disinformation referred to deliberate falsehoods spread by foreign powers, such as Russia, to undermine democratic institutions. However, during the 2016 U.S. election, this term was appropriated by political operatives in the U.S. and applied to domestic opponents. This shift, Kirchick argues, has turned “disinformation” into a catch-all label for any inconvenient or unflattering information, making it a partisan tool rather than an objective critique of falsehoods. This trend is particularly dangerous because it creates an environment where lies can thrive without repercussion, the rapid spread of false claims by both sides during recent political debates, whether about policy, past statements, or even international affairs, undermines the integrity of public discourse. Compounding this issue is the selective fact-checking by media outlets, which often focus on correcting one political figure while overlooking the lies of another.

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the constitutional protection of false statements on several occasions. Based on the Court’s rulings, it can be concluded that false speech holds no constitutional value. However, in some instances, the Court has deemed it unnecessary to suppress such opinions in order to ensure the proper functioning of the “marketplace of ideas”. Justice Louis Brandeis, in his frequently quoted concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, expressed that the remedy against false speech to be applied is more speech, not “enforced silence”. This concept later served as a foundation for the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gertz case, in which the majority opinion held that, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false opinion. Harmful opinions should not be addressed by the courts but rather countered by opposing arguments within the free market of ideas. The Supreme Court also pointed out in this context that, while the Constitution does not recognize the existence of false opinions, false statements of fact do not carry constitutional value. Yet, to a certain extent, even these false factual statements are inevitable as part of free debate.

The metaphor of the marketplace of ideas was conceived at a time when the general public could only be reached through a few key players, such as newspapers or radio broadcasters. These limited channels meant that speech, even if diverse in content, was still moderated to an extent by gatekeepers. However, the rise of the internet and social media has dramatically disrupted this status quo, granting far more individuals and entities access to the marketplace. While this democratization of speech has expanded participation, the theory of the marketplace of ideas has not evolved to keep pace with these changes. One could argue that the marketplace of ideas has become a failed market, overrun by disinformation. The spread of false information has overwhelmed the marketplace, not with the intent of informing but rather confusing citizens who are attempting to stay informed. If this market is left to regulate itself, it risks collapsing under the sheer weight of falsehoods. When too much disinformation competes with factual news, the latter struggles to break through, jeopardizing the very foundation of public discourse. In a free market of ideas, the assumption is that truth will naturally emerge victorious as competing viewpoints are debated. However, when the market is flooded with misleading or outright false information, the ability of citizens to discern truth from lies becomes increasingly difficult. This distortion can undermine democratic processes, as individuals are unable to make informed decisions. In such an environment, where falsehoods proliferate unchecked, the marketplace of ideas no longer functions as it was originally intended. Instead of fostering enlightenment, it risks promoting confusion and division.

Thus, there is a growing debate about whether the state should play a more active role in regulating speech, particularly in relation to false information. While the First Amendment offers robust protection of free speech, including opinions that may be harmful or unpopular, it does not extend this protection to false factual statements. Governments may be compelled to step in, not to suppress legitimate debate, but to prevent the manipulation of public discourse by those who spread disinformation. Without such intervention, the marketplace of ideas may fail to serve its purpose, threatening the integrity of democratic engagement and the well-being of society at large.

Lies, whether generated by AI or simply crafted by political operatives, are now integral to campaign strategies. The challenge for voters is distinguishing between genuine information and politically motivated falsehoods. Ultimately, the rise of political lying, combined with the dangers posed by deepfakes, makes it more difficult than ever for citizens to engage with truthful information. Whether through media literacy initiatives or stronger regulations, addressing these challenges is essential to restoring faith in democratic processes. Without a commitment to transparency and accountability, the future of political discourse may become even more dominated by falsehoods.

János Tamás Papp, PhD is an assistant professor at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary and a research expert at the National Media and Infocommunications Authority of Hungary. He earned his JD and PhD in Law at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Pázmány Péter Catholic University where he has taught civil and constitutional law since 2015 and became a founding member of the Media Law Research Group of the Department of Private Law. His main research fields are freedom of speech, media law, and issues related to freedom of expression on online platforms. He has a number of publications regarding social media and the law, including a book titled „Regulation of Social Media Platforms in Protection of Democratic Discourses”