Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception

by Cass R. Sunstein

A powerful analysis of why lies and falsehoods spread so rapidly now, and how we can reform our laws and policies regarding speech to alleviate the problem.

Lying has been with us from time immemorial. Yet today is different-and in many respects worse. All over the world, people are circulating damaging lies, and these falsehoods are amplified as never before through powerful social media platforms that reach billions. Liars are saying that COVID-19 is a hoax. They are claiming that vaccines cause autism. They are lying about public officials and about people who aspire to high office. They are lying about their friends and neighbors. They are trying to sell products on the basis of untruths. Unfriendly governments, including Russia, are circulating lies in order to destabilize other nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of those problems, the renowned legal scholar Cass Sunstein probes the fundamental question of how we can deter lies while also protecting freedom of speech.

To be sure, we cannot eliminate lying, nor should we try to do so. Sunstein shows why free societies must generally allow falsehoods and lies, which cannot and should not be excised from democratic debate. A main reason is that we cannot trust governments to make unbiased judgments about what counts as "fake news." However, governments should have the power to regulate specific kinds of those that genuinely endanger health, safety, and the capacity of the public to govern itself. Sunstein also suggests that private institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have a great deal of room to stop the spread of falsehoods, and they should be exercising their authority far more than they are now doing. As Sunstein contends, we are allowing far too many lies, including those that both threaten public health and undermine the foundations of democracy itself.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics, Social Media, Sociology, Law

192 pages, Hardcover

Published March 1, 2021

About the author

Cass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Reviews

[Sebastian Gebski · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's my kind of a book, definitely.

The author breaks down the topic, proposes a mental model, proves it in practice (by verifying how it applies in real-life cases). The final effect is surprisingly ... satisfying.

The other reason (why it makes sense to reach for "Liars" now, in 2021) is how it refers to some of the key problems present in the global public space: the subjectivity of "truth", high polarization of opinions, lack of understanding of what "the freedom of speech" is/should be. The timing couldn't have been better.

The book helps you to answer such questions like: what major players in social media space should do about falsehoods? what governments should do? should lying be punished by law? all 'kinds' of lying?

"Liars" get a bit too repetitive in the end (last 20-30%), but in general I've enjoyed reading this book A LOT. Highly recommended. 4.5 stars, rounded up to 5.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

We are living in an age of... well, let's call it "energetic dishonesty." So, Cass R. Sunstein's Liars feels incredibly timely. The book does an excellent job of untangling the legal and ethical knots of free speech. Sunstein wades right into the difference between "falsehoods" (an honest mistake) and "lies" (a deliberate attempt to deceive), laying out the framework for why our current laws make it so difficult to stop people from lying, even when it causes harm. It’s an academic look at how concepts like "truth bias"—our tendency to believe the first thing we hear—have been weaponized.

The book is at its absolute best when it explains how we got here. The chapters on the "cascade effect" and "group polarization" are basically a perfect diagnosis of our current political dumpster fire. Sunstein explains, in chilling detail, how a like-minded group can talk themselves into more extreme beliefs and how pressure builds for everyone to conform. It’s a fantastic explanation for the symptoms of our problem, showing exactly how a demagogue can effectively silence an entire political party and bend it to his will.

But for all its brilliant diagnosis, Liars is maddeningly short on cures. Sunstein is mostly dedicated to academic neutrality. The book is the equivalent of a doctor giving you a detailed, 100-page report on your fatal illness and then just shrugging. It’s great at identifying the chilling effect that liars and bullies create, but it doesn’t offer enough practical, solution-based approach for what we do about it. How do we protect truth when social norms, which rely on shame, have failed? The book just doesn't say.

Ultimately, Liars is an informative read if you want to understand the why of our post-truth society. But if you were looking for a blueprint on how to actually fix it, you'll be disappointed, likely because there is no clear solution aside from time and consistent pushback. It’s a solid, smart book that identifies the fire but offers no extinguisher. It just left me lying awake, wishing it had more answers.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve been waiting for the audio version of this book for months, and it didn’t disappoint. As per usual, Cass Sunstein brings an incredible blend of politics, psychology, and philosophy. In this book, he takes on the subject of lying, and while I don’t completely agree with all of his arguments, he laid them out in a great way. Sunstein argues that lying should be allowed, and this seems like a pretty outlandish thesis, but he dives into all of the nuances of the conversation. He discusses how lying is actually something that creates a democracy because there’s a spectrum of what we know is true, and when criticizing people in power, we may not have all of the information but enough to initiate a conversation. Without legalized lying, someone who is mistaken and did not know it could be punished for lying without even being fully aware.

Sunstein doesn’t look at this as a black and white issue, either. He goes deep into the moral conversation about lying. Is it right or wrong to tell a white lie to your significant other to spare their feelings? If the timing isn’t right, should a doctor tell a patient their slim chances of recovery? Although these instances may be morally justified, Sunstein covers the wide range of situations in which lying is morally wrong. What’s interesting is when you compare this to Sam Harris’ short bok Lying, as well.

I don’t really have anything negative to say about the book, but of all the books I’ve read on lying, deception, trust, gullibility, and everything in that realm, the authors all have the same theory. Their theory is that by default, we trust that people are telling us the truth. While Sunstein does cover exceptions to this such as motivational reasoning making someone skeptical, I still don’t know if trust is our default. For example, my default is not to trust, and I’ve been like that my whole life. It often takes an excessive amount of evidence for me to believe just about anything, so I’d like a book to really break that down a bit more.

[Sarah Cupitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The line between fact and fiction is increasingly blurred. This book explores the pressing issue of misinformation, examining the tension between free speech and the proliferation of falsehoods in our digital landscape

Notes:
- Social media posts shape public opinion, accusations of fake news are bandied about willy-nilly, and the concept of truth seems increasingly elusive
- the proliferation of falsehoods poses a significant challenge to society. From foreign governments manipulating public opinion through social media to national leaders dismissing factual criticism as fake news, the landscape of truth has become increasingly treacherous
- destabilises our ability to discern fact from fiction. One study found that, on Twitter, false information spreads differently than factual information, with falsities spreading both faster and farther. Well, falsehoods tend to be novel.
- alse stories are often designed to evoke strong emotional responses, particularly surprise and disgust, which further fuels their spread
- The assumption that truth will inevitably triumph over falsehood in open debate is challenged by these findings
-
Liars
Cass R. Sunstein, Liars, Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception. We live in an unsettling era. Social media posts shape public opinion, accusations of fake news are bandied about willy-nilly, and the concept of truth seems increasingly elusive. This Blink explores the pressing issue of misinformation, examining the tension between free speech and the proliferation of falsehoods in our digital landscape.
It outlines which factors contribute to the spread of misinformation and discusses the potential consequences that such untruths can have on democracy. The line between fact and fiction is increasingly blurred. This Blink offers tools to keep society both informed and resilient.
Imagine this. You're scrolling through social media and you come across a surprising post. A doctor claiming that Covid-19 is no more dangerous than the common cold. He has charts, data, citations and, most convincing of all, he's wearing a suit and tie.
Later, it's revealed that the man is a fake. He isn't a real doctor. The charts, the data, the citations, all bogus. How should society respond? Should he be banned from the platform? Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
Left alone to exercise his freedom of speech or receive a warning label on his post? In the Internet age, the proliferation of falsehoods poses a significant challenge to society. From foreign governments manipulating public opinion through social media to national leaders dismissing factual criticism as fake news, the landscape of truth has become increasingly treacherous. This environment destabilises our ability to discern fact from fiction. One study found that, on Twitter, false information spreads differently than factual information, with falsities spreading both faster and farther. Well, falsehoods tend to be novel.
They present information that disrupts our expectations, making them more engaging and shareable. Moreover, false stories are often designed to evoke strong emotional responses, particularly surprise and disgust, which further fuels their spread. The study found that the disparity between the spread of true and false information was particularly pronounced in the political sphere, where the stakes for democratic discourse are highest. This rapid spread of misinformation poses a formidable challenge to the idealised marketplace of ideas that underpins arguments for free speech. The assumption that truth will inevitably triumph over falsehood in open debate is challenged by these findings. Instead, we are witnessing a fragmentation of public discourse, with different groups adhering to divergent sets of facts.
This fragmentation is exacerbated by online echo chambers and algorithmic content curation, which tend to reinforce existing beliefs rather than challenge them. The implications for democracy are profound. An informed citizenry is crucial for effective self-governance, but how can we make sound collective decisions when we can't agree on basic facts? Balancing Freedom and Harm The protection of free speech in a democratic society is crucial but not absolute.
The United States Supreme Court has famously stated that we can punish someone for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre. But what about falsely claiming vaccines cause autism on the internet?
- for starters, most would agree that we shouldn't trust officials to be unbiased arbiters of truth, lest they end up suppressing legitimate dissent. On the other hand, some lies and falsehoods clearly cross a line.
- Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard? idk sounds good
- By allowing a wide range of expressions, including those we might disagree with, we create space for innovation, progress and the evolution of societal norms. This ties directly into the concept of error correction. No individual or institution has a monopoly on truth.
- for citizens to make informed decisions about their leadership and the direction of their society, they need access to a wide range of information and perspectives. This includes not just approved or mainstream ideas, but also dissenting views and even controversial or unpopular opinions. Of course, this doesn't mean that all speech is equally valuable or that harmful falsehoods should go unchallenged, but it does suggest we should look at alternatives to censorship whenever possible.

[Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

In "Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception", Cass Sunstein tackles one of the most pressing issues of our time: how to preserve the integrity of truth in a digital landscape flooded with misinformation. Social media and online platforms have transformed public discourse, making it easy for information—both accurate and misleading—to spread rapidly. This environment complicates our understanding of truth and challenges democratic ideals, raising questions about where to draw the line between free speech and protecting society from harmful falsehoods.

Sunstein examines the causes of misinformation’s spread and its impact on democracy. He describes how online misinformation has a unique way of captivating audiences. Falsehoods, especially when novel or emotionally charged, are more likely to engage users, leading to faster and broader distribution than factual content. The issue is particularly pronounced in politically charged arenas, where conflicting realities undermine democratic dialogue. The fragmented nature of public discourse today means that people often engage with information that aligns with their existing beliefs, a phenomenon exacerbated by online algorithms and echo chambers.

The book brings to light the complexity of balancing freedom and harm. Sunstein references the U.S. Supreme Court's longstanding principle that while free speech is fundamental, it isn’t absolute—especially when it endangers others. A classic example is the prohibition against falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, which illustrates how some speech can have immediate and severe consequences. Yet, navigating this in a digital context raises new ethical dilemmas. False health claims, like the discredited theory linking vaccines to autism, continue to cause real-world harm despite evidence debunking them. The persistence of such ideas challenges regulators: should platforms or governments have the power to intervene? And if so, when?

While censoring misinformation might seem like a solution, Sunstein presents a compelling case against this approach. He argues that the dangers of censorship may, in fact, outweigh its benefits. He recounts historical examples, such as the suppression of dissent in totalitarian regimes, where the effort to control information eroded basic freedoms. Limiting speech may start as an attempt to curb obvious falsehoods but can easily extend to stifling dissent and minority opinions. Protecting free speech, even in cases of misinformation, preserves a society where diverse ideas, including fringe or unpopular ones, can contribute to social progress.

To counter misinformation without censorship, Sunstein advocates for alternative strategies. Labeling content and providing context can effectively inform audiences about the reliability of information without silencing voices. He suggests that social media platforms could guide users toward credible sources, prioritizing factual content through user interface changes rather than removing or banning content. Education is another powerful tool; fostering media literacy can empower individuals to critically assess information, making them less susceptible to falsehoods. These approaches support the notion that, when equipped with accurate information and critical thinking skills, individuals are better positioned to recognize and reject misinformation.

Sunstein proposes a nuanced approach to regulating misinformation, outlining a framework for evaluating falsehoods based on factors such as the speaker’s intent, the potential for harm, and the immediacy of risk. For instance, intentional deception with significant potential harm might justify stronger interventions, while harmless mistakes may require only a gentle correction. This multi-factor assessment aims to calibrate responses proportionally, allowing authorities to take decisive action against truly harmful misinformation while respecting freedom of expression. By carefully weighing these dimensions, we can better navigate the complexities of misinformation and its impact on society.

In essence, "Liars" underscores that managing misinformation demands a careful balance between preserving freedom of expression and mitigating harm. Sunstein’s proposed strategies—contextual labeling, platform design improvements, and fostering media literacy—offer a middle ground, enabling truth to thrive without infringing on free speech. His framework for assessing the risks of falsehoods provides a roadmap for policymakers and society to handle misinformation thoughtfully, promoting a more informed, resilient, and open public discourse in the digital age.

[Chris Branch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Giving this three stars for the importance of the topic, but I was a bit disappointed in it overall; it was really more of a two-ish star read for me.

Much of the content is focused on bringing up situations and examples and then asking questions that invite the reader to ponder the ideas raised. In fact, Sunstein occasionally gives the impression that he’s working through his thinking right here on the page, rather than merely presenting his already considered position.

As for what his position is, well, I found it a bit wishy-washy. While decrying potential harms done by lying, he can’t justify infringing on free speech by singling out false statements for regulation. He does provide reasons for this, but it’s a bit unsatisfying for readers who may have picked this book up looking for a solution to the problem of liars.

Sunstein points out that “With the law as it stands, most false statements simply cannot be deterred.” (p. 100) and he does suggest that “…government should be allowed to regulate falsehoods that threaten to cause serious harm that cannot be avoided through a more speech-protective route.” (p. 112). But his actual proposals are fairly mild: “Warnings and disclosures…”, “Damage caps and schedules…”, “…a general right to demand correction or retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging…”, and for internet providers in particular, require removal of “libelous posts”, and the downgrading of “defamatory statements … so that they are less likely to circulate.” (p. 102-103)

These are not bad ideas, but again, they come across as a bit weak and overly protective of malicious actors who lie for personal gain. So this book is fine as a starting point, and does fair job outlining the issues, but for me doesn’t go nearly far enough in exploring possible solutions.

[Erik Rimalover · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. provides theories and action plans to politicians and companies to handle misinformation and explores how various situations could be handled via different avenues of the law. it explores the differences between spreading incorrect or misinformation knowingly or unknowingly, and what would be considered defamation or liable. rightfully so, there is a lot of focus on social media and it’s role in regulating speech along with it’s need to partner with govt. agencies.

[Kenji Li · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great for the layperson in explaining the legal (and societal) implications of taking extremes on the issue of falsehoods and fake news. It would be recommended to pair this reading with those quoted from the book, such as those from Mill for a more complete treatise on this subject. Overall great introduction on this sensitive topic, especially in a polarised world.

[Fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear and concise examination of the legality of dealing with lies and the pitfalls involved in making people stop lying, particularly on social media platforms. Much more lawyer-y than the cover art would suggest, which belies its pedigree as an Oxford University Press product.

[Pascual · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Great, simple written and clear book on how to balance the need for truth in public discourse (and in social media) and the constitutional protection on free speech. I think a new edition would be improved by having graphics (i.e. charts) of the matrices of reasoning set by the author.

[Russell Posegate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly good in a “geared-for-the-layperson legal writing” kind of way.

[Hamlen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very complex reasoning leading to a well formulated position stated in the last (3 page) chapter.

[Nate Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book covering the legal free speech foundations for allowing lies. Sunstein is a very honest and thoughtful constitutional mind.

[Uka · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short but very dense, yet not difficult to follow. Brings up points and arguments to think about

[Jacek · Rating 5 out of 5]

A powerful and thought-provoking reflection on how the First Amendment should address false speech.

[Timon Ruban · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great little book on how to think about regulating free speech that wonderfully combines the ethical with the pragmatic.