The authors argue that the marketplace of ideas is not competitive in the economic sense. Yet the Court often rules as if it is. What are the implications?
By assuming often that the idea market is competitive, Justices are committing the reification fallacy. They are treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. In this instance, the Justices assume that existing markets are structured the same way idealized competitive markets are. In doing so, they treat the marketplace of ideas as inherently good, when in fact one must first determine what structure actually exists.
Browne, M. Neil; Rex, Justin; and Herrera, David L., "Potential Tension Between a "Free Marketplace of Ideas" and the Fundamental Purpose of Free Speech" (2012). Economics Faculty Publications. 8.
The Akron Journal of Constitutional Law and Policy