4 ms·

The relative merits of terrible advice aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether the US government has a constitutional responsibility to not goad

by causi 4y ago

The relative merits of terrible advice aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether the US government has a constitutional responsibility to not goad private companies into pushing or being hostile toward any specific viewpoint or communication. This is a bit like the "nobody deserves encryption because child pornography exists" court cases in that the specific details of someone being horrible are masking the much larger legal principle that's at stake. Personally I'm not sure where the line between "public announcement" and "government censorship" lays or should lay, but "the government can do whatever it wants as long as its opponents are shitty people" is not a good outcome.

dahart 4y ago
The article didn’t even consider the possibility that tech companies just happen to disagree with the Great Barrington Declaration and saw it as speculation and misinformation, which it is to some degree. It also doesn’t discuss the possibility that this Declaration was signed by a small minority of scientists. Instead, it spends all it’s time trying to frame this as a conspiracy, a large group being silenced by a small group of powerful people. The saddest part is that the stated goal of the GBD is exactly the same as the stated goal behind our lockdowns, to minimize the death toll while things settle. Framing this as opposing parties with opposing goals is more about tribal politics than about the facts of the debate or about free speech. The Constitution makes clear that Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and does not extend to some kinds of speech that can be harmful to society. This is a case where this speech might turn out to be a False Statement of Fact that is not protected and should not be spread, because of the ramifications it has on people’s lives. The merits of the argument are very relevant to the question of whether there is a constitutional responsibility, according to the constitution!
- causi 4y ago
  False Statement of Fact Even deliberate lies are protected by the first amendment unless they fall under the category of defamation. "Harm to society" is an irrelevant distinction under American law.
  - dahart 4y ago
    That’s absolutely not true. The reasoning behind free speech exceptions like fighting words, sedition, pornography and others all hinge on harm to society. The Supreme Court has already recognized False Statements of Fact concerning “issues of public concern.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Issues_%22of_public_concern%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Issue...
    - causi 4y ago
      Fighting words is not an exemption to free speech; it is an exemption to laws against assault and battery. Speaking fighting words does not break the law. Responding to fighting words by punching the speaker doesn't either. If the listener chooses not to respond to fighting words with violence and your fighting words did not include over criminal acts such as making a true threat, you will not be arrested.
      - dahart 4y ago
        > Fighting words is not an exemption to free speech Wrong again. Yes they are, generally speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- peteradio 4y ago
  The GBD was basically a recitation of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response. How could you trivially classify it as harmful to society?
  - dahart 4y ago
    I didn’t. The WHO did. (But it’s a good point that the GBD’s goals and the WHO’s are the same, which is a good reason to ask why the debate has veered away from science and facts and is devolving into attacks and bad faith arguments.)
r721 4y ago
What if a billionaire pays a network of his agents of influence (and bots) to push and amplify that specific viewpoint on your social network? Is that a bad thing to deamplify it a bit?
- causi 4y ago
  Is that a bad thing to deamplify it a bit? Certainly not. I'm just saying the government should not be directly leaning on you to deamplify it. If you want to deamplify it on your own, fine. If the government wants to make a public announcement that "social networks allowing this sort of thing is bad" that is also fine.
- mvc 4y ago
  > What if a billionaire pays a network of his agents of influence Exactly. Or if the billionaire is the head of an enemy state.
themitigating 4y ago
They don't because the first amendment says congess shall make no laws suppressing ...speech
- dahart 4y ago
  ... as long as that speech isn’t (including, but not limited to) fighting words, sedition, incitement, obscenity, pornography, false statements of fact, counterfeit currency, commercial speech, speech owned by others, threats, slander, libel, defamation, and more. ... and also as long as the speaker isn’t being paid, isn’t speaking for the government, isn’t employing people, isn’t in prison, isn’t a regulator of the bar, the airwaves, the military, or immigration, and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Some of those exceptions may be relevant to this particular article.

by causi 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

The article didn’t even consider the possibility that tech companies just happen to disagree with the Great Barrington Declaration and saw it as speculation and misinformation, which it is to some degree. It also doesn’t discuss the possibility that this Declaration was signed by a small minority of scientists. Instead, it spends all it’s time trying to frame this as a conspiracy, a large group being silenced by a small group of powerful people. The saddest part is that the stated goal of the GBD is exactly the same as the stated goal behind our lockdowns, to minimize the death toll while things settle. Framing this as opposing parties with opposing goals is more about tribal politics than about the facts of the debate or about free speech. The Constitution makes clear that Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and does not extend to some kinds of speech that can be harmful to society. This is a case where this speech might turn out to be a False Statement of Fact that is not protected and should not be spread, because of the ramifications it has on people’s lives. The merits of the argument are very relevant to the question of whether there is a constitutional responsibility, according to the constitution!

causi 4y ago
False Statement of Fact Even deliberate lies are protected by the first amendment unless they fall under the category of defamation. "Harm to society" is an irrelevant distinction under American law.
- dahart 4y ago
  That’s absolutely not true. The reasoning behind free speech exceptions like fighting words, sedition, pornography and others all hinge on harm to society. The Supreme Court has already recognized False Statements of Fact concerning “issues of public concern.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Issues_%22of_public_concern%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Issue...
  - causi 4y ago
    Fighting words is not an exemption to free speech; it is an exemption to laws against assault and battery. Speaking fighting words does not break the law. Responding to fighting words by punching the speaker doesn't either. If the listener chooses not to respond to fighting words with violence and your fighting words did not include over criminal acts such as making a true threat, you will not be arrested.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > Fighting words is not an exemption to free speech Wrong again. Yes they are, generally speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
peteradio 4y ago
The GBD was basically a recitation of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response. How could you trivially classify it as harmful to society?
- dahart 4y ago
  I didn’t. The WHO did. (But it’s a good point that the GBD’s goals and the WHO’s are the same, which is a good reason to ask why the debate has veered away from science and facts and is devolving into attacks and bad faith arguments.)

r721 4y ago

What if a billionaire pays a network of his agents of influence (and bots) to push and amplify that specific viewpoint on your social network? Is that a bad thing to deamplify it a bit?

causi 4y ago
Is that a bad thing to deamplify it a bit? Certainly not. I'm just saying the government should not be directly leaning on you to deamplify it. If you want to deamplify it on your own, fine. If the government wants to make a public announcement that "social networks allowing this sort of thing is bad" that is also fine.
mvc 4y ago
> What if a billionaire pays a network of his agents of influence Exactly. Or if the billionaire is the head of an enemy state.

themitigating 4y ago

They don't because the first amendment says congess shall make no laws suppressing ...speech

dahart 4y ago
... as long as that speech isn’t (including, but not limited to) fighting words, sedition, incitement, obscenity, pornography, false statements of fact, counterfeit currency, commercial speech, speech owned by others, threats, slander, libel, defamation, and more. ... and also as long as the speaker isn’t being paid, isn’t speaking for the government, isn’t employing people, isn’t in prison, isn’t a regulator of the bar, the airwaves, the military, or immigration, and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Some of those exceptions may be relevant to this particular article.