Abstract
Donald Trump defied expectations in more ways than one. His lax attitude to facticity and the truth barely surprises anyone anymore. However, as Robert N. Spicer reminds us in his book Free Speech and False Speech: Political Deception and Its Legal Limits (or Lack Thereof), discussions about his honesty dominated the political discourse back in 2016 and 2017 to the point where commentators were questioning his sanity. Spicer’s take on the issue is novel and intriguing – he aims to establish whether and what the legal limits of lying and other forms of political deception are. As he puts it, if the Trump presidency put lying, and other forms of deception, front and center as a problem in our politics, we should be addressing what the law has to say about what is allowed and what is not allowed in terms of political acts of deception. (p. 3)
He addresses this issue in three chapters. Chapter 2, ‘Conduct, Affiliation, and Messages: A Typology of Statues Addressing Political Deception’, includes an overview of the various statutes about deception in the United States. Chapter 3, ‘The Judicial Discourse in the Handling of Political Misinformation (and Disinformation)’, then explores a few legal cases. The title of Chapter 4 is pretty self-explanatory: ‘Three Recent Cases: Alvarez, 281 CARE, and SBAL’. The Conclusion then defends the view that some form of regulation of false political speech might be necessary especially if ‘collusion with foreign entities’ (p. 111) has taken place. The relatively short book, which is part of Palgrave Pivot, offers an interesting perspective on a much debated topic and is definitely worth a read.