Freedom of speech is more than the right to say things.
It is the right not to be forced to say things you don't want to say.
Freedom of speech is at risk.
Three Supreme Court justices--Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas--voted to uphold a Texas law that would prohibit large social media companies from refusing to publish material they thought dangerous or offensive. Alito's opinion stated that Texas's law "does not require social media platforms to host any particular message but only to refrain from discrimination against a user’s speech on the basis of 'viewpoint.'”
 |
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a720_6536.pdf |
Protecting an entity's right to express a viewpoint is the whole point of the First Amendment. The rule works in the opposite direction as well. A newspaper or other publisher need not create or distribute words, images, or ideas they consider objectionable. That is telling some private party what they must speak.
The Texas law does not apply to me and this blog. The Texas law applies to social media platforms with 50 million or more customers--way more than this blog. But the principle is the same, so there is risk to everyone's freedom, and to the viability of publishers everywhere.
Let me reveal a sad little secret about the "comment" sections of any social media site. There are weird, crazy, angry people out there. I need to moderate comments to keep the blog from becoming a cesspool and legal liability for me. Moderating comments is a time consuming nuisance, but absolutely necessary. Many political sites have given up and stopped allowing comments. Keeping out the crazies is too much work.
This blog gets malware spam comments. I delete them before they are published. This blog gets plagiarized news articles that would introduce copyright problems for me. I delete those, too. This blog gets obscene, threatening comments generally directed at me personally, sometimes others. I delete those, although I collect them and send them to local law enforcement which has a growing file. More dangerous to the political environment, this blog gets proposed comments purporting to be from well-known local and national political figures. It attributes words and ideas to them, and they have their own reputations to protect. I delete those. Also dangerous are other comments--some obscene, some not--written by a well-known local resident which makes libelous assertions about Medford-area people. That local troll is beyond the reach of public shame, but I am not beyond the reach of a lawsuit for having published his assertions. I delete those, too, and collect them for law enforcement's files.
International social media companies have scale that makes them a potential danger to our democracy. They can spread conspiracies and misinformation that leads to insurrections. Texas law targeted Facebook and Twitter. They have the right to protect themselves from trolls, spammers, and viewpoints they don't like, and they are smart to do so.
Fox News has a right to editorial control of their product. If Fox does not want to air commentators critical of Republicans, it is their right to control their message. Shepard Smith, Carl Cameron, and Chris Wallace are off the air. They weren't "on message." They presented news that contradicted the opinions voiced by the more-popular opinion hosts. Fox has a point of view. They have freedom of speech and the press.
Facebook and Twitter should have it, too. Who says? The Bill of Rights.
In contrast, the First Amendment is perfectly clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Private individuals or organizations can say or not say whatever they want, within certain limits. So called conservatives are feeling picked on because social media are censoring some of their more dangerous lies. Waaa! Somebody call a waaambulance.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this blog as well as a few others for reasoned thought and commentary about my previous home state for almost 45 years.
ReplyDeleteIt stands out daily for the careful thought and commentary, usually.
Peter does provoke thought, and those thoughts do invite comments. I agree with his stats on how few comments actually become visible and why.
I moderate a large, private Facebook group set up for dads of new West Point cadets. I share that responsibility with several other dads who all help guide dads deal with their sons and daughters during their 4 year journey at the service academy.
Fortunately for us, the job is relatively easy, as we really don't get too many bad posts or comments. Each year at this time we welcome new dads, and they need only answer a few questions to gain access - their name, where their son or daughter are from, and what year to they expect to graduate and get commissioned. Easy, peasy.
Today's post here is timely, revealing what it takes to deal with reader commentary. We readers get value from Peter's daily posts, and we sometimes offer challenges to the arguments made, or reinforce what is stated. Behind the scenes, things aren't always so civil as he reveals.
Today, Oregon Catalyst announced they are following the Oregonian's decision from several years ago - they are turning off reader comments.
Social media and blogs have revealed an ugly side of society. Too many that comment reveal their biases, lack of intelligence, and sometimes even more.
Civility seems to be disappearing.
For too many, commenting is sport rather that adding, explaining, or correcting. Some comments turn into threats or insults, instead of helping. That's perhaps why many don't comment, or worse abandon the sites. There's value in participating - to continue their learning and/or refine their critical thinking skills.
In any case, thanks to Peter and many of the commenters who do make an effort to elaborate and make his commentary valuable. Keep up the good work!
It’s not quite as simple as Peter makes it out to be.
ReplyDeleteLarge social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook are in some ways the new “public square.“ Should a few tech CEOs be in charge of what is and is not allowed to be discussed in our online political conversations?
Take, for example, the coordinated suppression in October, 2020 of the Hunter Biden laptop story, a story which is now widely acknowledged to have been true. It seems to me that the only credible justification for that act of censorship was to hurt the chances that Donald Trump would be reelected. What if the shoe is on the other foot next time? Will everyone who was happy about this act of censorship be happy about the next one?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? *
* Who will guard the guards themselves?"
Great topic. Much can be and will be said about speech.
ReplyDeleteLet's not lose sight of the main point: liars. The whole point of free speech is to express truth. Truth is sacred, perhaps the only thing we should worship, never mind the guy with long white beard.
Of course, in this complex society we inhabit truth is often hard to find. To paraphrase, "Truth is in the details". I could go on and on, but the hard work of this blog, and in fact the main job for all of us, is sifting out lies from opinions, deception from attitudes, and spin from reality. Sometimes it's a matter of common sense, having a tuned BS meter, or "considering the source", but as I shared recently, we humans have a knack for deception, probably something left over from dodging saber tooth tigers.
How else can we explain the absurdity of Mitch McConnell prattling about "mental health": only one of so many other insults to our collective intelligence?
Don't like what social media companies are allowing you to discuss? Worried that the dastardly titans of tech are censoring conservatives and burying the Hunter Biden laptop story? Mad that these few liberal leaning companies aren't allowing our hero Big Don Trump to egg us on to commit acts of violence, er... patriotism in his name?
ReplyDeleteWell my friends, it's time for us to head on over to TRUTH SOCIAL! There we can be free some thus liberal censorship and let The Truth ring loud and true! Please join me, Kurt, Donald, and countless other true MAGA followers in making Truth Social our ONLY social media!
The FCC once had a "Fairness Doctrine" the media had to follow, but it was strongly opposed by conservatives and libertarians and eventually repealed. Now they whine because they aren't allowed to spread their lies about the pandemic or the election on social media. Go figure.
ReplyDelete