And you know what? I’m totally OK with that! The content is still allowed on Twitter (and whether that’s a good/bad thing is a totally separate discussion). The only thing they’re saying is that they won’t let you pay to amplify its reach. Nobody (other than the advertiser) is going to shed a tear for those misclassifications.
It just means that a few more people will have to be naturally clever / viral / whatever to get their message out. And I’m totally OK with that too. There was once a world where Twitter wouldn’t take money from _anyone_ and everyone had to be clever to be seen or heard on the platform. Not such a bad thing.
That is not correct: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-th...
> Under U.S. law, many falsehoods—even some deliberate lies—receive the full protection of the First Amendment. That is true even though “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” as Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote for the Supreme Court in 1974. Nonetheless, the Court has often refused to allow government to penalize speakers for mistakes, sloppy falsehoods, and lies. Political lies are strongly protected; but even private lies sometimes are as well.
The reality of having laws against broadcasting lies is that they will be applied sensibly if the rest of the system is sensible - and if it is not, you have worse problems.
You would be hard-pressed to ever see a government give ground where once they have asserted authority. Only encroaching further into our rights.
The issue isn't a slippery slope as much as it is centralising power to a single point vulnerable to corruption & allowing politically charged decisions to be hidden behind opaque bureaucratic processes.
The problem with law enforcement is you need people to pay them and tell them what laws to enforce.
The problem with lawmakers is you need some means to determine who gets to make the laws.
The answer is the guy with more guns and pointy sticks. The guy with more guns gets to tell you that while you’re in his land, whatever land it is, you’re going to give him money or goods.
Social contract theory mitigates this to a degree, by specifying the method by which you select who the guy with the most guns is. Sometimes it’s more than one guy. Sometimes it is a lot of them, and they all counterbalance each other, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that what keeps them in power is a piece of paper and all the guns they’ll ever need to back up what it says on the paper. Everything else is norms and traditions and processes. This is power.
The problem with social contract theory is that the contract can say anything. You just need enough people with enough guns to agree that this contract serves their interests enough.
Well the US Constitution wasn’t written in a vacuum. It was written by, largely, Englishmen and some other Northern Europeans subject largely to English rule. They already had values and cultural norms and traditions, they just needed the document. Well they had one already, several actually, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutions of every State. The Articles were not doing the job of serving the interests of the people, in the view of the framers and Madison in particular, and they swapped it out.
Now go read Article I. Examine the structure. There’s a selection process, and there’s minutia about procedure, and there are limitations. The Article I branch is Congress, it is the supreme authority of the government, not coequal with the Presidency or SCOTUS, you were lied to about that, but above them. If Congress were one guy and could speak with one voice, it could do almost anything, impeach and remove the President, any sitting Judge, any Officer of the government, amend the Constitution, and declare war at will.
These are very good reasons why Congress isn’t one voice, and it is many.
Now to get back to what you were saying, the problem with with laws against things like “broadcasting lies” is you don’t know that they will be applied sensibly. The more laws you have to begin with, then more rope you have to hang the citizenry.
The First Amendment, and for that matter the Second and Third, the reason they are as ironclad as they are is specifically to prevent abuses by the Federal Government. It was to appease the faction at the time known as the Anti-Federalists who felt, rightly in my opinion, is that the more guns you give the Federal Government, the more potential abuses for power because there will be (have been and are) who will attempt to co-opt the Federal Government to wield those guns.
Congress doesn’t need the power to determine what is a lie and what isn’t. You don’t need laws to punish liars. If you have faith in sensible systems, then the system you want to have faith in is the people. If you don’t have that, then you can’t have faith in Congress.
The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?
- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...
I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive
- https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil...
- https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee...
It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.
I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.
That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.
It's true that there are limitations on 1A. But these are very frequently misunderstood. For example, the bit about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is incorrect.
That's incorrect. There exist many statutes that criminalize certain commercial speech. And 15 states have criminal libel laws on the books. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that criminal liable laws generally violate the 1st amendment even though they have overturned many examples in the past.
And there is no general prohibition against criminalizing speech that isn't protected by the first amendment such as fraudulent or illegal commercial speech.
It is exactly that, but that doesn't actually end the real conversation people are trying to have.
Do we support the idea that the govt shouldn't restrict speech, but that we as society should? There are a lot of "chilling" effects seen in history.
On other hand, TOTALLY unrestricted speech is a completely different ball of wax, complete with plenty of hairballs in there. There's the ever-present (yet valid) "what about child porn", but there's also a lot of the issues that are arising in recent years with explicitly false statements and representations designed to influence the average person. Sure, such statements can't survive enough research, but it's easy enough to make it hard to research, to create conventional wisdom that is just wrong. Society where we cannot trust "facts" cannot sustain - it will fracture into separate societies in which trust CAN be held.
And on the gripping hand, we have those that argue for truly unrestricted speech in words, but actually just have confidence that their viewpoint will win out, not by virtue of reason and logic but by virtue of fear and hate.
When I was young, I believed in absolute free speech. I'd quote Voltaire, I'd defend any attempt to allow communication, even that which made me uncomfortable, but I did it for noble reasons. A lot of my more liberal views came about because I supported the efforts of those that made me uncomfortable to express themselves. Nowadays, despite those personal growths, having seen how much we CAN'T handle truly free speech, I'm much more hesitant.
Clearly excessive suppression of speech, be it from the govt or be it from society, is terrible. But now I'm horrified to see that truly restricted speech just empowers demagogues. It ends up not being truly free speech either, as it creates fear of reprisals that can't be proven. It promotes the name of speech while restricting the ideal.
We need to discuss what our true objective is. We can't find the line yet, perhaps we never will, but perhaps we can narrow down the grey area a bit.
But right now, we have the believers in unrestricted speech as a noble ideal, with users of unrestricted speech to restrict ideas hidden among them, arguing with those that are fine with the govt not restricting speech but wanting social protections, with a decently large group that is wondering if keeping the govt out fully and leaving it to social repercussions is perhaps flawed that also joins in.
Saying "the first amendment only restricts the govt" is a fine statement about the current law. It doesn't address anyone's actual concerns though.
No one has said the constitution applied to Twitter. Everyone knows the first amendment applies to governments only.
Yet free speech still has a huge cultural role in western countries that goes well beyond government charters, for very good reasons. That's the reason why it's embedded in law in the first place, not the other way around.
Almost as exhausting as people saying it's exhausting.
>No one has said the constitution applied to Twitter. Everyone knows the first amendment applies to governments only.
Odd way for the GP to open up an argument then.
>One thing about the first amendment is that it doesn't have conditions. This type of thing that Twitter is doing will be full of them, ie selectively defining what's political or not.
If everyone knows that it doesn't apply, then everyone should just leave it out to begin with. Also, in implementation, it absolutely has conditions. 0/2.
>Yet free speech still has a huge cultural role in western countries that goes well beyond government charters, for very good reasons. That's the reason why it's embedded in law in the first place, not the other way around, we didn't start caring about free speech because the US constitution adopted it, nor should we dismiss it where government rule ends
Huh? It was added because the founders had first hand experience with government suppressing rebellious rabble rousers who threatened their power. It guaranteed freedom of religion, the press, and assembly. Of course that's what they were fighting for. In what way did it go "beyond government charters"?
I am the OP and I specifically referenced the first amendment as an analogy to highlight the dangers of grey areas, which are the things the constitution avoids by making them absolute. Which is where all the risk remains with this sort of policy, and the reason why it's relevant to Twitter.
Saying the first amendment doesn't apply to private companies is meaningless in that context.
Context matters. Pigeonholing a tired counter argument where it doesn't fit isn't contributing to this conversation. Although I suspect you didn't actually read the comment before replying, only the first sentence.
Not true in the slightest.
See my other message in this thread for some examples (from today!) of people who think the first amendment is relevant when talking about private companies.
> Everyone knows the first amendment applies to governments only.
You say that, and yet …
"@jack .Something smell really"fishy here".I don't agree with. I don't get it.Hidden socialism in plain sight.Chaos & Anarchy .Blasting the first amendment .This declaration remind me of the Russia ,Cuban revolution .A cruel dictatorship Socialism/Communism . Extremely dangerous !" https://twitter.com/albertobmas/status/1189659185258147841
"It's a sad day for the First Amendment, but a long awaited confirmation of the stupidity of the masses!" https://twitter.com/DoogieFrasier/status/1189644420121055232
"Right. Sure. We all believe this one. Aside from being against the First Amendment, no one can possibly be stupid enough to believe Twitter will stop pushing the leftist agenda. Only those with an R or conservative leaning will be stopped. Yawn" https://twitter.com/SharonRaeL/status/1189641756947746819
"'We need more regulation of advertising.' @jack can I introduce you to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States?" https://twitter.com/brianfrobbins/status/1189641373055668226
"And who decides that the political advertising is earned? and isn’t this a violation of the first amendment rights? And what is the process for earning said right which is enshrined in the Constitution to advertise their beliefs or interpretation of fact? @tedcruz @realDonaldTrump" https://twitter.com/TheMightyMacky/status/118963820772345446...
"@jack just took away our 1st amendment rights!" https://twitter.com/AbrahamHershfie/status/11896409454127841...
"Oh wow mr hi horse. Such a great platform. Ok for some ppl to call others pieces of shit but some get banned! 1st amendment jack" https://twitter.com/surfdadRED/status/1189656480062099457
If you mention the first amendment in the context of a private organization and you don't explicitly note that you understand that it doesn't technically apply in this situation, I'm going to associate your argument with the arguments of the people quoted above.
Speech is not reach. Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard, it is the right to speak your mind. If people decide to not listen to what you say (followers), you have no right to force them to (adverts).
It does. You cannot shout "fire" to incite a panic for malicious purposes. We already determine that those lies are not protected by the First Amendment.
> the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/introducti...
The first amendment does have conditions that arise through legal construction, since it alone is not the whole of the Constitution.
The question is whether this is a lesser evil than allowing political ads but selectively blocking stuff with very broad and potentially inconsistent moderation rules. I personally think totally blocking is the easier of the two in terms of decision making but I expect this will generate far more false positives in the end on the fringes and grey areas.
It's a good thing we'll now have two different experiments, on a large scale, to see which one is more self-destructive.
One of the main problems that I see is the outsized influence we've given to the very-vocal but small parties on social media to have on silencing other people and groups, going well beyond the limited free speech exceptions we previously observed in society for over a century (culturally, not just legally). Neither of these approaches really addresses that problem at FB/Twitter. Which is why I'm curious which one is going to expand those grey areas, where the abuse/downside risk remains, rather than reducing it.