4 ms·
Freedom of speech isn't baked into the fabric of the universe. It's an ideal that we as a society have to continually negotiate for ourselves, and weigh against
by notpachet 3y ago
Freedom of speech isn't baked into the fabric of the universe. It's an ideal that we as a society have to continually negotiate for ourselves, and weigh against our other collective values in cases where they are in opposition.
Society is ever-evolving so it's understandable that our definition of "free speech" will necessarily need to evolve along with that. Is it freedom of speech to defame people in the press? Is it freedom of speech to mislead people about the results of an election? Is it freedom of speech to use AI to mimic the voice or appearance of others?
How do we balance the freedom of speech of individuals versus the freedom of speech of corporations? Especially in cases where the corporation is providing a public utility in all but name? (eg, Cloudflare, Twitter)
We are still trying to figure out the right balance between these tensions. I'm definitely not arguing that we've gotten it right so far (far from it, in many cases). And I'm not discounting the risk of, as you put it, "massive societal control" -- we've seen that, too.
I just get irritated when I see people acting as if these are easy questions with clear answers. They're absolutely not. That sort of conviction is deeply unattractive because it shows that you're not seeing the world and its complexities in a clear light. I don't understand how anyone can look at the situation and not come away being impressed by the fundamental difficulty of trying to navigate the middle path.
As a demonstration of this point, the exact issue you're describing -- whether a company like Twitter has the right to block certain types of posts on their platform, especially when they may be pressured to do so by the government -- is on the Supreme Court docket as we speak. It's far from settled law. The case that I believe you're referencing ("illegal relationship") was appealed, and its ruling put on hold:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf
- vdqtp3 3y agoIf the government is violating my fourth amendment rights if it arranges for a third party to search my property when they cannot themselves, it follows that it would be equally unacceptable for them to arrange for a third party to censor my speech. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4th-amendment-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-unde...
- notpachet 3y agoI don't think the analogy holds. Twitter is not your house. It would be akin to arguing that federal agents shouldn't be allowed to search your checked bags when you board a domestic flight. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions on searching those belongings, but it's less black-and-white than you suggest.
- vdqtp3 3y agoDo you think the government would have been overstepping if they ordered Twitter to make the removal, against their will?
- notpachet 3y agoI don't know. I think it depends on a lot of factors. I think there are some circumstances where that sort of heavy-handed approach would be warranted, but I also think there are a lot of cases where it would be unwarranted and potentially an abuse of rights. The challenge is coming up with a litmus test to differentiate the two. As I've pointed out multiple times in this thread, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on that exact issue. I am curious to read the opinions of the various justices on the matter.
- superhumanuser 3y agohttps://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-d8070ef43b3b89e8e76b4569c77446d9 https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-law... Looks like a federal judge felt that the US Government was overstepping and "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth" and decided to block them from engaging in the censorship behavior.
- notpachet 3y agoDid you miss the link I posted above? The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf Hence my argument about this not being settled law.