4 ms·
> This shows that the limits of the first amendment are speech when its convenient. Links, webpages, and more are speech, but also completely censored in the US
by bigstrat2003 2y ago
> This shows that the limits of the first amendment are speech when its convenient. Links, webpages, and more are speech, but also completely censored in the US media.
For better or for worse, the US only has free speech protection which is binding on the government. Sometimes that's good (you can kick out people who don't behave). Sometimes that's bad (censored media). But even in the cases where it's bad, it's not clear to me that it would be worth it to enact freedom of speech laws that apply to private parties. It seems like the cure might be worse than the disease in that case.
- joshfee 2y agoThe problem with enforcing "freedom of speech" on private parties is that it essentially the same as infringing the speech of that private party. The only issue I have is when companies can play both sides and in one breath claim they're neutral for the purpose of section 230 protection, and then in the next breath take part in censorship because it's better for business. Pick a lane, either lane, but you shouldn't get it both ways
- jcranmer 2y ago> The only issue I have is when companies can play both sides and in one breath claim they're neutral for the purpose of section 230 protection, and then in the next breath take part in censorship because it's better for business. The entire point of §230 is to immunize companies for the consequences of that which you decry as censorship (i.e., moderation).