4 ms·
As a free-speech absolutist, the basic problem you should have with this is that as precedent, it would lead right into the legislature being able to force the
by crooked-v 4y ago
As a free-speech absolutist, the basic problem you should have with this is that as precedent, it would lead right into the legislature being able to force the press to publish certain things because not doing so would be 'censorship'.
- evandale 4y agoHow could this set precedent for compelled speech of publishers? Facebook, Twitter, and Google aren't even publishers.
- treerunner 4y agoIf filtering is not publishing then what is it? Do we need a new term for this arrangement?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> Do we need a new term for this arrangement? The term 'filtering' already exists.
- bpodgursky 4y agoI think this is a case where "free speech absolutism" is not perfectly aligned with "first amendment absolutism", but either is a logically consistent framework.
- imperfect_blue 4y agoIn the hypothetical world, where press is a natural monopoly, we would be far less likely to allow the press to refuse to publish viewpoints they don't like. Or we would outright nationalize the press and lead to a different sort of problem.
- xani_ 4y agoPress is publishing what their authors write, not what their readers write. It's not a social conversation. Public Television (in countries that have that) would be better example.