Abstract
Defamation is a more or less effective tool in tort law to stop damage to one’s reputation, which can be grievous and even lead to a death of despair, but its scope is limited to content that’s literally false. Much reputational harm does not proceed via literally false content; it is a matter of images or what’s implied. Against this opponent an effective False Light tort is of much use when properly understood as a reputational—rather than privacy—tort. False Light can be wielded against conversational implicature as well as deepfakes. It fulfills our moral imperative to not succumb to cheap talk that works testimonial epistemic injustice against generic reports on others’ reputations, which we need to safely and efficiently navigate the world. Fortunately, False Light can be deployed via a wrongfulness-tracking liability-rule to be sensitive to free speech concerns but strict in order to protect the dignity of those injured as well as secure corrective justice.
Recommended Citation
Cosim Sayid,
Cheap Talk, Deepfakes, Epistemic Injustice, False Light, and Free Speech,
62
Idaho L. Rev.
398
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review/vol62/iss2/8
First Page
398
Last Page
444