4 ms·

I mean, there's a long precedent of restricting free speech in the public interest. The classic example of shouting fire in a public theater comes to mind: the

I mean, there's a long precedent of restricting free speech in the public interest. The classic example of shouting fire in a public theater comes to mind: the speech causes imminent danger to the theater occupants, and the courts have ruled that the rights of the public to safety outweigh the rights of the individual to say whatever they'd like. The question with fake news becomes: what is the damage that this type of speech causes to the public? This is a really difficult question to answer, especially since we're only starting to notice the effects on our political system. If this damage is too great, there would be justification to restrict it in the public interest. Of course, the people who end up making these determinations may also have conflicting political incentives, which makes this a very delicate situation to tackle in as broken of a political environment as we have in the US.

jlbbellefeuille 9y ago
There needs to be a substantial governmental reason to restrict any liberties granted in the constitution. For example, guns are not allowed in post offices for a substantial governmental reason.
prolikewhoa 9y ago
I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest? [1] https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (Fully Sourced in Description)
friendlydude12 9y ago
Being able to physically run your mouth in public has little to do with free speech, including shouting fire in a movie theatre. Free speech is the ability to express any opinion or idea, anti-government opinions included. This is why online posts and various non-verbal actions (like burning a flag) are protected under The First Amendment, even though nothing is being physically said. Additionally this is why threatening violence towards somebody isn’t protected: a threat of violence isn’t an opinion or an idea.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  The first amendment protects you from the American government. Private entities can block what they want. Your first amendment rights were not violated if Facebook censors you.
  - friendlydude12 9y ago
    Never made that claim but thanks for the info.
  - snerbles 9y ago
    There are cases where the First Amendment can apply to "private-owned public spaces", such as company towns [0] or shopping malls [1]. While such a designation has not yet been applied to Facebook, some are exploring the possibility of doing so [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama [1] https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/free-speech-california-court-rules-malls-restrictions-on-conversations-with-strangers-unconstitutional/ https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/free-speech-cali... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-29/how-to-tame-google-facebook-amazon-and-apple https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-29/how-to-ta...
tikhonj 9y ago
The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been used to defend government overreach ever since[1]. What's interesting is how the same argument for allowing more discrimination would be laughed off the stage as completely meritless and bigoted. But the situation is exactly the same! Organizations are allowed to discriminate against protected classes when it's a bona fide occupational qualification or the organization is a private club, so surely there's long precedent for allowing discrimination in specified circumstances? Somehow almost everyone sees how this argument is totaly facile in the context of discrimination, yet it gets trotted out over and over when suggesting further restrictions on freedom of speech. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been used to defend government overreach ever since[1]. good grief... you should shout this from the rafters. thanks for sharing.
CM30 9y ago
> Of course, the people who end up making these determinations may also have conflicting political incentives, which makes this a very delicate situation to tackle in as broken of a political environment as we have in the US. Or in other words, I hope people realise it could well be their political enemies that decide what's classed as fake news and what isn't. Wonder how many people would change their mind about backing a crackdown on the concept if they realised it could be the current administration making the decision?

jlbbellefeuille 9y ago

There needs to be a substantial governmental reason to restrict any liberties granted in the constitution. For example, guns are not allowed in post offices for a substantial governmental reason.

prolikewhoa 9y ago

I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest? [1] https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (Fully Sourced in Description)

friendlydude12 9y ago

Being able to physically run your mouth in public has little to do with free speech, including shouting fire in a movie theatre. Free speech is the ability to express any opinion or idea, anti-government opinions included. This is why online posts and various non-verbal actions (like burning a flag) are protected under The First Amendment, even though nothing is being physically said. Additionally this is why threatening violence towards somebody isn’t protected: a threat of violence isn’t an opinion or an idea.

electricEmu 9y ago
The first amendment protects you from the American government. Private entities can block what they want. Your first amendment rights were not violated if Facebook censors you.
- friendlydude12 9y ago
  Never made that claim but thanks for the info.
- snerbles 9y ago
  There are cases where the First Amendment can apply to "private-owned public spaces", such as company towns [0] or shopping malls [1]. While such a designation has not yet been applied to Facebook, some are exploring the possibility of doing so [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama [1] https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/free-speech-california-court-rules-malls-restrictions-on-conversations-with-strangers-unconstitutional/ https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/free-speech-cali... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-29/how-to-tame-google-facebook-amazon-and-apple https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-29/how-to-ta...

tikhonj 9y ago

The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been used to defend government overreach ever since[1]. What's interesting is how the same argument for allowing more discrimination would be laughed off the stage as completely meritless and bigoted. But the situation is exactly the same! Organizations are allowed to discriminate against protected classes when it's a bona fide occupational qualification or the organization is a private club, so surely there's long precedent for allowing discrimination in specified circumstances? Somehow almost everyone sees how this argument is totaly facile in the context of discrimination, yet it gets trotted out over and over when suggesting further restrictions on freedom of speech. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

mr_spothawk 9y ago
> The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been used to defend government overreach ever since[1]. good grief... you should shout this from the rafters. thanks for sharing.

CM30 9y ago

> Of course, the people who end up making these determinations may also have conflicting political incentives, which makes this a very delicate situation to tackle in as broken of a political environment as we have in the US. Or in other words, I hope people realise it could well be their political enemies that decide what's classed as fake news and what isn't. Wonder how many people would change their mind about backing a crackdown on the concept if they realised it could be the current administration making the decision?