4 ms·

>For the same reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what information we can see and read (outside narrow limits), it also prohib

>For the same reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what information we can see and read (outside narrow limits), it also prohibits the government from using its immense authority to coerce private actors into censoring on its behalf. That is an interesting take which I never considered.

mpalmer 6y ago
Does the first amendment guarantee the freedom to profit from speech?
- djoldman 6y ago
  I don't believe that it does. However, I do think that knowingly lying to obtain something of value is in many instances fraud. I am not a lawyer.
- dabbledash 6y ago
  I think a law preventing you from profiting from speech on the basis of the content would still be a constitutional issue. E.g., a law saying you can distribute pornography but can’t sell it for a profit would be unconstitutional. “You don’t have a right to profit from speech” would be a convenient pretext to, for instance, shut down the New York Times.
  - mpalmer 6y ago
    Makes sense. I was coming at it from a taxation perspective rather than the "we're shutting you down" angle. We tax plenty of things that have societal harm - cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Speech is definitely too slippery a concept though. But what about reach? Could we theoretically tax businesses based on the volume of people their content reaches, thus bringing in public revenue and/or disincentivizing: - virality for the sake of ad impressions - too-large (social) media networks I'm sure it'd be phenomenally difficult to measure, but easier to pin down than arbitrary speech.
    - dabbledash 6y ago
      I don’t know enough to say confidently. Personally, I’d be suspicious of a rule like that. In the end, it has to be enforced by the executive and it sounds a lot like “all speech will be tolerated except speech that spreads widely enough to be a threat to existing power.”
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      That sounds suspiciously like an Internet tax. Congress already passed a law banning such taxes.
SllX 6y ago
It’s a bad take, or an aspirational one at best. I would love if that were the case, but it is not. First five words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...” It’s pretty unambiguous. The United States doesn’t make laws without Congress[1], and if Congress can’t make a law, the President’s Office can’t enforce it. That however is not as big a limit on Congress as it seems. Congress can make other difficult and tedious laws, and difficult and tedious describes most of the body of Federal law. Congressmen can also threaten to remove statutes which shield people and organizations from liability as a coercive tactic, e.g. Section 230, or write into law that they will withhold Federal funds to States that don’t pass certain laws. Why can they do this? Two reasons really. A legal body like SCOTUS is in no position to tell a political body like Congress that they cannot. If Congress passes a law that violates the Constitution, Article III courts can strike it down or gut it in court proceedings, but with no law in play and no harmed party there is nothing for the courts to do. Nor can an Article III court stop Congress from passing a law nor remedy a harm by forcing Congress to reinstate a repealed law. The process of lawmaking is impervious to the Courts. Also, and more importantly: Article I. The House and Senate make their own rules and are charged with enforcing them on their members. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making certain laws, laws they arguably didn’t have the power to make in Article I in the first place. It doesn’t say a damn thing about the political process of lawmaking, or the conduct of House members and Senators nor prohibit them from using hardball tactics for their own interests or the perceived interests of their constituents and political allies. There are people that would actually like to see Section 230 burn, and if that’s the case, gutting and removing it makes it fair game for politicking. If the House and Senate as a body are making an attempt to coerce large companies to political ends, there is no one to tell them “No.” except voters, and only through elections. If they had any inkling at all that they were going to receive sufficient pushback from voters as to threaten their seats, these meetings wouldn’t be happening. The Federal government is the most powerful organization in the United States by far and second place ain’t even close. Congress legally sits atop the governmental hierarchy even when politically they like to play second fiddle to the President. Congress can coerce a lot of people with little to no pushback so long as the targets of coercion are also unpopular, or at the very least, voters are ambivalent towards them. [1] Another important point. A State is not the United States. Congress is the legislative branch of the United States. Don’t comment to incorrect me on this point.
MilnerRoute 6y ago
Then how does he explain the existence of the FCC? Their whole job is to set limits on what can and can't be broadcast. (Just for example, there was George Carlin's famous monologue about the seven words you can never say on television...) Greenwald may be opposed to censorship on principle, and doesn't think the government should be interfering in any way with Facebook's operations. But it seems like he's let that color his understanding of how government actually works.
- chrismcb 6y ago
  Fcc exists to protect public airwaves. The broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource. Apparently they also regulate "wire" and "cable" which I don't believe they should be able to. But regulating the airwaves isn't quite the same as censoring free speech.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    Pardon my ignorance, but what sources do you have claiming the latter two are under the control of the FCC?
Veserv 6y ago
I happen to agree with that point of view, so just to elaborate from my perspective to head off a likely point of confusion, government censorship is not inherently bad. There are clearly cases where society in the US has determined, and I agree, that it is in the interest of society as a whole to sacrifice some of our freedom as the harms outweigh the benefits such as for speech that advocates "imminent lawless action". Even in the current case, although I personally disagree that censorship is the right answer, if we as a society lucidly determine that the societal harm outweighs our freedom then I will stand by that outcome even though I would hope it would be overturned in the future via future legal action. What I find truly concerning about the present circumstances is that there are attempts to frame it is something other than government censorship and should thus undergo less or even no scrutiny. And on the other side that these organizations should be compelled to carry speech as if that were "protecting freedom" rather than just another form of government abridgement of speech and thus should undergo less or even no scrutiny. In my opinion, it is our duty as a society to not be wishy-washy about this and recognize that any attempts by the government to influence speech, either directly or indirectly, are government censorship and we must tackle this head on and come to decision whether we think the harm to society is worse than the sacrifice of our freedoms.

mpalmer 6y ago

Does the first amendment guarantee the freedom to profit from speech?

djoldman 6y ago
I don't believe that it does. However, I do think that knowingly lying to obtain something of value is in many instances fraud. I am not a lawyer.
dabbledash 6y ago
I think a law preventing you from profiting from speech on the basis of the content would still be a constitutional issue. E.g., a law saying you can distribute pornography but can’t sell it for a profit would be unconstitutional. “You don’t have a right to profit from speech” would be a convenient pretext to, for instance, shut down the New York Times.
- mpalmer 6y ago
  Makes sense. I was coming at it from a taxation perspective rather than the "we're shutting you down" angle. We tax plenty of things that have societal harm - cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Speech is definitely too slippery a concept though. But what about reach? Could we theoretically tax businesses based on the volume of people their content reaches, thus bringing in public revenue and/or disincentivizing: - virality for the sake of ad impressions - too-large (social) media networks I'm sure it'd be phenomenally difficult to measure, but easier to pin down than arbitrary speech.
  - dabbledash 6y ago
    I don’t know enough to say confidently. Personally, I’d be suspicious of a rule like that. In the end, it has to be enforced by the executive and it sounds a lot like “all speech will be tolerated except speech that spreads widely enough to be a threat to existing power.”
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    That sounds suspiciously like an Internet tax. Congress already passed a law banning such taxes.

SllX 6y ago

It’s a bad take, or an aspirational one at best. I would love if that were the case, but it is not. First five words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...” It’s pretty unambiguous. The United States doesn’t make laws without Congress[1], and if Congress can’t make a law, the President’s Office can’t enforce it. That however is not as big a limit on Congress as it seems. Congress can make other difficult and tedious laws, and difficult and tedious describes most of the body of Federal law. Congressmen can also threaten to remove statutes which shield people and organizations from liability as a coercive tactic, e.g. Section 230, or write into law that they will withhold Federal funds to States that don’t pass certain laws. Why can they do this? Two reasons really. A legal body like SCOTUS is in no position to tell a political body like Congress that they cannot. If Congress passes a law that violates the Constitution, Article III courts can strike it down or gut it in court proceedings, but with no law in play and no harmed party there is nothing for the courts to do. Nor can an Article III court stop Congress from passing a law nor remedy a harm by forcing Congress to reinstate a repealed law. The process of lawmaking is impervious to the Courts. Also, and more importantly: Article I. The House and Senate make their own rules and are charged with enforcing them on their members. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making certain laws, laws they arguably didn’t have the power to make in Article I in the first place. It doesn’t say a damn thing about the political process of lawmaking, or the conduct of House members and Senators nor prohibit them from using hardball tactics for their own interests or the perceived interests of their constituents and political allies. There are people that would actually like to see Section 230 burn, and if that’s the case, gutting and removing it makes it fair game for politicking. If the House and Senate as a body are making an attempt to coerce large companies to political ends, there is no one to tell them “No.” except voters, and only through elections. If they had any inkling at all that they were going to receive sufficient pushback from voters as to threaten their seats, these meetings wouldn’t be happening. The Federal government is the most powerful organization in the United States by far and second place ain’t even close. Congress legally sits atop the governmental hierarchy even when politically they like to play second fiddle to the President. Congress can coerce a lot of people with little to no pushback so long as the targets of coercion are also unpopular, or at the very least, voters are ambivalent towards them. [1] Another important point. A State is not the United States. Congress is the legislative branch of the United States. Don’t comment to incorrect me on this point.

MilnerRoute 6y ago

Then how does he explain the existence of the FCC? Their whole job is to set limits on what can and can't be broadcast. (Just for example, there was George Carlin's famous monologue about the seven words you can never say on television...) Greenwald may be opposed to censorship on principle, and doesn't think the government should be interfering in any way with Facebook's operations. But it seems like he's let that color his understanding of how government actually works.

chrismcb 6y ago
Fcc exists to protect public airwaves. The broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource. Apparently they also regulate "wire" and "cable" which I don't believe they should be able to. But regulating the airwaves isn't quite the same as censoring free speech.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but what sources do you have claiming the latter two are under the control of the FCC?

Veserv 6y ago

I happen to agree with that point of view, so just to elaborate from my perspective to head off a likely point of confusion, government censorship is not inherently bad. There are clearly cases where society in the US has determined, and I agree, that it is in the interest of society as a whole to sacrifice some of our freedom as the harms outweigh the benefits such as for speech that advocates "imminent lawless action". Even in the current case, although I personally disagree that censorship is the right answer, if we as a society lucidly determine that the societal harm outweighs our freedom then I will stand by that outcome even though I would hope it would be overturned in the future via future legal action. What I find truly concerning about the present circumstances is that there are attempts to frame it is something other than government censorship and should thus undergo less or even no scrutiny. And on the other side that these organizations should be compelled to carry speech as if that were "protecting freedom" rather than just another form of government abridgement of speech and thus should undergo less or even no scrutiny. In my opinion, it is our duty as a society to not be wishy-washy about this and recognize that any attempts by the government to influence speech, either directly or indirectly, are government censorship and we must tackle this head on and come to decision whether we think the harm to society is worse than the sacrifice of our freedoms.