So, Free Speech, so long as it’s speech the government is OK with. Yup, that seems to square perfectly with the First Amendment, no contradictions there. /s
Honestly, I see the whole line of reasoning “we make speech free by restricting speech” as complete bullshit. Claiming that a prior restraint on speech increases freedom requires some amazing mental gymnastics. This doesn’t mean that ByteDance shouldn’t be forced to divest from TikTok. It seems completely reasonable to look at TikTok and realize that it is being used as an arm of the PRC for propaganda, influence and data collection. Based on that realization the Federal Government has a valid, compelling interest in limiting the reach of ByteDance. And a law forcing the divestiture of TikTok by ByteDance is limited in scope and works to resolve the issue, without overly burdening Free Speech.
But, claiming that setting the Government makes speech freer by restricting speech is just Orwellian Double Speak.
***> “we make speech free by restricting speech” ***
I agree. This is obviously contradictory. But we see it throughout all social media always along the lines of , “we need to censor the opinions that you have that conflict with our’s to protect free speech”
What a privately owned site does isn’t really a matter of free speech, online whining about it be damned. This is about government restrictions on speech. The whole point of the First Amendment was that the government should not get to the be arbiter of what speech is allowed and what is not. This has it’s limits (all rights do), and people can be held to account for the repercussions their speech has (libel, calls to violence, etc.). But, the government should not be in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what isn’t unless there is a very compelling reason. Stop and ask yourself, do you really want the incoming administration to get to decide what speech is OK and what isn’t?
The EU is right on this though, if they’re big enough to be gatekeepers through the network effect, they should be held to higher standards than some random site with 1000 users.
I would step back and ask if we would be considering such regulation, were this a newspaper? Should the government be allowed to regulate the speech of a newspaper, if it’s readership becomes large enough? That is essentially what is being argued for. That, once a form of media reaches some critical mass of influence, the government now gets to control what that media source publishes. That seems awful dangerous to me. The whole point of Free Speech as a concept is that people should be free to engage in speech which the government does not like.
Just because speech is online, doesn’t mean it should receive less protection from government control.
I mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily censor stuff once they’re big enough, not that the government should be able to enforce censor lists.
A fair enough sentiment, but let’s get more precise. What defines “arbitrarily”? And are there topics a site isn’t allowed to, or must always, censor? And who gets to make up that list? Is it just a matter of the site having a clear Terms of Service delineating what is allowed on the site?
This is always the problem with these discussions is the devil is really in the details. And the more we dig at those details, the more commonly the answers end up being, “the government gets to make a list”. And there are dangers in both prevented and compelled speech, when directed by a government. This isn’t to say that this can’t be the answer, or that it’s always the wrong answer. But, I think it’s an answer we should always treat with a healthy amount of skepticism. Government control of speech can seem like a great idea, when we agree with the government. It often becomes less so when we don’t.
Just as governments shouldn’t censor speech, neither should companies of a certain size and influence. I’m absolutely not suggesting the government forcing companies to censor things.
So, Free Speech, so long as it’s speech the government is OK with. Yup, that seems to square perfectly with the First Amendment, no contradictions there. /s
Honestly, I see the whole line of reasoning “we make speech free by restricting speech” as complete bullshit. Claiming that a prior restraint on speech increases freedom requires some amazing mental gymnastics. This doesn’t mean that ByteDance shouldn’t be forced to divest from TikTok. It seems completely reasonable to look at TikTok and realize that it is being used as an arm of the PRC for propaganda, influence and data collection. Based on that realization the Federal Government has a valid, compelling interest in limiting the reach of ByteDance. And a law forcing the divestiture of TikTok by ByteDance is limited in scope and works to resolve the issue, without overly burdening Free Speech.
But, claiming that setting the Government makes speech freer by restricting speech is just Orwellian Double Speak.
***> “we make speech free by restricting speech” ***
I agree. This is obviously contradictory. But we see it throughout all social media always along the lines of , “we need to censor the opinions that you have that conflict with our’s to protect free speech”
What a privately owned site does isn’t really a matter of free speech, online whining about it be damned. This is about government restrictions on speech. The whole point of the First Amendment was that the government should not get to the be arbiter of what speech is allowed and what is not. This has it’s limits (all rights do), and people can be held to account for the repercussions their speech has (libel, calls to violence, etc.). But, the government should not be in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what isn’t unless there is a very compelling reason. Stop and ask yourself, do you really want the incoming administration to get to decide what speech is OK and what isn’t?
The EU is right on this though, if they’re big enough to be gatekeepers through the network effect, they should be held to higher standards than some random site with 1000 users.
I would step back and ask if we would be considering such regulation, were this a newspaper? Should the government be allowed to regulate the speech of a newspaper, if it’s readership becomes large enough? That is essentially what is being argued for. That, once a form of media reaches some critical mass of influence, the government now gets to control what that media source publishes. That seems awful dangerous to me. The whole point of Free Speech as a concept is that people should be free to engage in speech which the government does not like.
Just because speech is online, doesn’t mean it should receive less protection from government control.
I mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily censor stuff once they’re big enough, not that the government should be able to enforce censor lists.
A fair enough sentiment, but let’s get more precise. What defines “arbitrarily”? And are there topics a site isn’t allowed to, or must always, censor? And who gets to make up that list? Is it just a matter of the site having a clear Terms of Service delineating what is allowed on the site?
This is always the problem with these discussions is the devil is really in the details. And the more we dig at those details, the more commonly the answers end up being, “the government gets to make a list”. And there are dangers in both prevented and compelled speech, when directed by a government. This isn’t to say that this can’t be the answer, or that it’s always the wrong answer. But, I think it’s an answer we should always treat with a healthy amount of skepticism. Government control of speech can seem like a great idea, when we agree with the government. It often becomes less so when we don’t.
Just as governments shouldn’t censor speech, neither should companies of a certain size and influence. I’m absolutely not suggesting the government forcing companies to censor things.
some speech is speech-ier than others
directly proportional to the amount of money representing the speech in question