4 ms·

Regulation isn't necessary to silence debates on unpopular wars (the past 20 yrs provides ample examples). "Freedom of speech" like the "public interest" isn't

by boh 4y ago

Regulation isn't necessary to silence debates on unpopular wars (the past 20 yrs provides ample examples). "Freedom of speech" like the "public interest" isn't easily definable. Companies like Meta and Twitter are "free" to censure at will, but regardless of whatever claims they may make of their rights to this freedom, it negatively effects the freedom of others. In practice a loss of government regulation just yields the regulatory power to private interests. The choice unfortunately becomes not whether we choose regulation or "freedom" but who is granted regulatory rights: public or private interests.

ch4s3 4y ago
Freedom of speech is pretty well defined in a century of US case law and in nearly 3 centuries of western political philosophy, the core is government restrain of speech. When you shift focus to moderation on social media you're in the territory of a "culture of free speech" which I agree is a mushier and harder to define thing. The key difference is that the government can put you in jail, or confiscate your property whereas Facebook and only harass you within the confines of Facebook.
- boh 4y ago
  A backlog of case law doesn't lead to a subject being well defined. The government retains powers over speech with some speech being "free-er" than others.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    On the contrary, three centuries of intellectual discourse with a common thread does lead to a solid definition. Carve outs for incitement and defamation/libel are the very exceptions that prove the expansiveness of the concept.
- rektide 4y ago
  Reading "American Midnight" about Wilson & industrialists promoting/propogandizing WWI & the whole US using that movement as a cudgel to beat down labor, progressives, minorities, basically everyone with anything to say that wasnt ra-ra-ism. The Postmaster General Albert Burleson makes up a solid part of chapter 3 of this march through a tragic & vicious time. Burleson told post offices to send any suspicious/un-American/not-war-supporting publications to him for review, which he then used either deny mailing to or used to attack directly the institutions. The web of publications not just suppressed but attacked here seemingly extended to basically anyone with a dissenting voice on labor, race, or seemingly most any topic where the governmemt wasnt portrayed in favorable rights. We did (thanks to the courts) come to limit government power to censor & abuse eventually, and to your defense not that much longer after. We have only just gotten to ~100 years of there being some clarity, but after an enormous cliff where these ideas seemingly meant nothing, and from which we emerged only because of a very very few sensible & reasonable high placed people who reversed an animal & base anti-speech anger that government had been systemizing actively. I still broadly agree with your distinction, but noting the dark shitty times & bring aware how bad things were not that long ago- at a governmental level- is also important. This book has been eye opening.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Yeah, that's on my reading list, but I'm aware of that history. I think the definition was clear even before the Supreme COurt came around. You're of course right that realizing how precarious the 1a right is should give us pause.

by boh 4y ago

ch4s3 4y ago

Freedom of speech is pretty well defined in a century of US case law and in nearly 3 centuries of western political philosophy, the core is government restrain of speech. When you shift focus to moderation on social media you're in the territory of a "culture of free speech" which I agree is a mushier and harder to define thing. The key difference is that the government can put you in jail, or confiscate your property whereas Facebook and only harass you within the confines of Facebook.

boh 4y ago
A backlog of case law doesn't lead to a subject being well defined. The government retains powers over speech with some speech being "free-er" than others.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  On the contrary, three centuries of intellectual discourse with a common thread does lead to a solid definition. Carve outs for incitement and defamation/libel are the very exceptions that prove the expansiveness of the concept.
rektide 4y ago
Reading "American Midnight" about Wilson & industrialists promoting/propogandizing WWI & the whole US using that movement as a cudgel to beat down labor, progressives, minorities, basically everyone with anything to say that wasnt ra-ra-ism. The Postmaster General Albert Burleson makes up a solid part of chapter 3 of this march through a tragic & vicious time. Burleson told post offices to send any suspicious/un-American/not-war-supporting publications to him for review, which he then used either deny mailing to or used to attack directly the institutions. The web of publications not just suppressed but attacked here seemingly extended to basically anyone with a dissenting voice on labor, race, or seemingly most any topic where the governmemt wasnt portrayed in favorable rights. We did (thanks to the courts) come to limit government power to censor & abuse eventually, and to your defense not that much longer after. We have only just gotten to ~100 years of there being some clarity, but after an enormous cliff where these ideas seemingly meant nothing, and from which we emerged only because of a very very few sensible & reasonable high placed people who reversed an animal & base anti-speech anger that government had been systemizing actively. I still broadly agree with your distinction, but noting the dark shitty times & bring aware how bad things were not that long ago- at a governmental level- is also important. This book has been eye opening.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Yeah, that's on my reading list, but I'm aware of that history. I think the definition was clear even before the Supreme COurt came around. You're of course right that realizing how precarious the 1a right is should give us pause.