Here's it is. I may talk about the religion part later, but now I'm just going to deal with the rest of it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is some of what the First Amendment does not require:
- It does not require Simon and Schuster to publish your book.
- It does not require the New York Times to publish your editorial.
- It does not require any person, corporation, university or other entity that owns or controls a medium of communication to allow you to use it to say whatever you want, or for that matter to use it at all.
The courts have found, in general, that because Congress shall make no such law, and the executive is charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed (hence it's the executive, duhh), there can be no law that gives the executive the power to abridge the freedom of speech or of the press etc., therefore it can't do that. The 14th Amendment extends the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states, so this now applies to them as well.
However, speech (written as well as verbal) can be used for ends which are otherwise illegal. Therefore, the Amendment is not a license for blackmail, extortion, criminal conspiracy, fraud, or terroristic threats. Furthermore, a person who is harmed by false and defamatory speech may have cause for civil action. Public institutions, such as state institutions of higher education, that ordinarily allow their resources to be used for communicative persons by campus organizations, or rent them out, are burdened by the Amendment to some extent, but private universities are not -- although they may have values that militate for tolerance of diverse views. However, as one might easily imagine, speech that conflicts with other of their values presents a need for balance. One of those values, for example, might be truth, although not in the case of, say, Liberty University.
I hope this clears up any confusion. One might think that libertarians, above all others, would respect the right of the owners of newspapers, broadcast outlets, theaters and auditoriums, and social media platforms, to the unrestrained use of their own property.
Update: In response to Mojrim's comment, Michelle Goldberg discusses this problem here. If you can't read it because of the paywall, I'll just say that she ends up concluding:
But the answer isn’t to give Trump his beloved account back. [Russian dissident] Navalny pointed out that Trump’s ban seems arbitrary because so many other bad actors, including autocrats, Covid deniers and troll factories, still have access to the service. He called for platforms to create a more transparent process, appointing committees whose decisions could be appealed. That would be a start.
In the long term, tech monopolies need to be broken up, as Elizabeth Warren has proposed. Singer described the tech barons who finally took action against Trump after enabling him for years as “rulers of a kingdom that abdicated their responsibility for a long time.” This time, with Trump, they ruled judiciously. But they shouldn’t rule over as much as they do.
I'm not sure that is really a total solution, however.
15 comments:
All true but... At what point does a private monopoly constitute a de facto public utility subject to the same rules as the state?
I agree this is a problem. When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no Internet, in fact no radio or TV. It was very cheap to print up a handbill or a pamphlet, and there were normally numerous competing newspapers in a big city -- most of which were highly partisan, btw. The ideal of supposedly neutral or objective journalism (which isn't really possible but still) is largely modern.
The problem is, as we have seen, that if you declare the Internet platforms to be common carriers, the volume of defamation, lies and terroristic threats becomes too large to manage, and at the same time attracts a lot of people who are not only deceived but may be moved to dangerous action. On the other hand, given the oligopolistic nature of the companies that own these platforms, they can exclude speech they just don't happen to like. I don't say I have the answer.
"...if you declare the Internet platforms to be common carriers, the volume of defamation, lies and terroristic threats becomes too large to manage, and at the same time attracts a lot of people who are not only deceived but may be moved to dangerous action."
You could say that about any common carrier. And I've believed for a long time that facebook, twitter, et al have become de facto utilities.
Our utilities are often times privately owned, but government regulated. The local electric company can't shut down your electricity because they don't like your politics, think what you post is dangerous and feel they must pull the plug on you.
Just doesn't happen.
Pardon me, but I assume Cervantes left that last comment in there because it's so terribly, tragically asinine.
"Tweeting" is not necessary to live unless you're a bird. Electricity, water. These are necessary. Twitter, YouTube et al. are not "utilities."
It makes no sense to give a megaphone to a maniac. As a matter of fact, it's murderous.
Shitler belongs behind bars forever, or worse. Perhaps banishment. He is an insane maniac. A monster. To keep a microphone away from a monster is just common sense. I'm pretty sure convicted violent criminals don't get Twitter accounts. And he's much more dangerous than a convicted violent offender because he hasn't been convicted yet. Give it a week. And impeachment is just the beginning part of the final journey for this madman, this traitor, this tragic fiend.
You're being deliberately obtuse, Don. That which is necessary to life includes the ability to participate in the economy and, in a democracy, the public discourse. What that exactly constitutes changes over time with social perceptions and communications technology, something the esteemed Cervantes pointed out. Try getting a job today without both reliable internet and a cell phone.
The problem, dear Cervantes, isn't common carrier law, it's Sec 230 shielding them from liability. With CC law comes regulation and oversight, not a license to misbehave. Goldberg is partly right, we need a transparent, public oversight system for these entities, but it absolutely must occur within the context of CC regulation. The TV and radio networks managed to do so for decades, so can gazillion-dollar corporations like FB and Tweeter if even the smallest of their claims about their technology are true. It's only a matter of scale.
What part of "de facto" did Don miss?
Does he know what it means?
Of course Don Quixote knows what "de facto" means. Just because someone applies that term to an entity like Twitter doesn't make it true. I wonder if my mocker knows what "Tu autem ignarus" means?
Mo, I respectfully disagree; I still maintain that Twitter and Facebook and Instagram are not necessary to life. Bullshit. I don't use them. How on earth do I survive as an educational worker and a freelancer? I do agree, however, with your assertion that if we're going to have such entities, they MUST have oversight that is neutral and fair, and not dominated by batshit-crazy Republicans, which is a redundant term now.
My grandmother never, ever drove. People may say such a thing is impossible. Well, she lived in Buffalo, NY, and lived to be 88 years old. Impossible, huh?
Furthermore, the danger of anthropogenic climate change and concomitant species extinction makes all our little anthill arguments moot. Argue all you want about rights, privileges, laws ... it ain't gonna matter much when we're gone.
Seriously, Don?
You know as well as I that just because some people, by extra measures, can get along without it doesn't change the meaning of necessary to life. I could probably structure my life so as to never use either a hotel or a restaurant; that doesn't invalidate public accommodation law* for everyone else. As for people like you and me who eschew social media; we're becoming more irrelevant every day. I'm comfortable with that but it's not a thing anyone should be forced into.
Lastly, I'm sure there's a name for whatever logical fallacy you closed with but I don't know it off the top of my head.
*The two are inextricably linked.
Well, it's not a "fallacy" but rather making a point: we argue and piddle about issues that, while important, even vital to our day-to-day life, will be obviated when we're extinct.
I don't disagree with any of the points you're making.
But wouldn't it make sense to address the existential threat posed by climate change and species extinction while we're arguing about all this other quotidian stuff? Otherwise, there won't be anyone around to argue.
No, Don, it wouldn't. At least not here where the debate has been defined by the post you and I are responding to. This, as with what I said about public accommodation and utilities, you already know. Indeed, you engaged in this debate without reference to such existential issues from the start. One is forced to consider the possibility, however remote, that you are using such to foreclose an argument which you are clearly losing.
There's nothing wrong with losing an argument, Don. I've done so a thousand times and hope to a thousand times more before I shed this mortal coil. Indeed, my predictions are so grim that I am genuinely thankful when they are proven wrong. Come join me, Don, the water's warm.
Gee, I've never had such a lovely invitation to lose an argument. I think Dumbass could really learn a thing or two from your style.
You remind me of a friend from Israel, whose mother's general outlook on like was informed by her saying, "Expect the worst and enjoy the surprises."
Before I lose the argument, I need to say I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Is it the assertion that giant social media platforms are public utilities? If so, then I think I'm agreeing with you that they must be regulated if they are to exist.
I've noticed lately that on trashy sites, such as Yahoo!, and other less sensationalistic information sites, the companies that run them have stopped allowing feedback from readers. They say this is because they want to provide a safe, enjoyable experience for readers--or something like that. Translation: many people choose to post snarky, invidious, even vicious comments, and so we're better off without them.
I'd like to submit to you, Mo, that we'd all be better off without Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Is such a thing possible? And how do you feel about that prospect?
The reason I ask is based on a realization I had after attending a talk Wynton Marsalis gave to a packed hall at Northwestern University in 1995, where he singlehandedly played, and talked about coaching young people's jazz groups, questioning their members after a performance--what were the drummer and pianist playing while you took your sax solo? Could you hear the trumpet during the second playing of the "head"? What was the bass playing while you were "comping" behind the trumpet? And what he found was that in a lot of instances they couldn't answer--because they were playing, not listening.
The whole talk was obviously an allegory to what is going on in our society today--and this was 25 years ago, before it had gotten much worse--and the fact that there is an extravagant, profligate amount of chatter, nay, even screaming, yelling--and violence. And none of the abusers are LISTENING.
In my mind, the social media giants provide platforms that create volcanic noise, akin to that of Fox Propaganda Network. While it is possible for one to share pictures of their garden flowers en masse with friends, instead of writing letters, or to locate an old lover--which is generally not a healthful thing to do--these platforms also allow people to lob grenades small and large, and they help foment unrest by letting hardcore militants (usually right-wing) spread hate and even plan coups.
So here's my stance: we'd all be better off WITHOUT such utilities--if that is what they are. And if that is what they are, then I do not argue that point.
Let me add another of my convictions here, Mo.
On this MLK Jr celebratory weekend, let's remember that Martin had no megaphone. Yet he reached a hell of a lot of people and still does posthumously.
We wouldn't let one person drive a vehicle that takes up a square mile and weighs one million tons. If it weren't for the megaphones of the media, Shitler never would have been elected.
Let's take away the megaphones--from everybody.
Let Facebook's, Twitter's, and Instagram's followers talk to each other directly. If there's one thing I learned from my late Uncle Jerry, it's that "relationships go in twos."
And the only real change in the world comes through meaningful relationships--not the blather and vitriol that passes for public discourse on major media sites.
I don't have the answer, but I can see the problem.
Well listen folks, on the one hand I did just fine for 50 years without so-called "social media." On the other hand, they aren't going away, like it or not. So we need to figure out how to live with them. Abolition is not possible.
Don: we're arguing, fundamentally, about the advisability of allowing private entities to set the boundaries of free speech. This goes beyond Trump and King and any other one person you care to name. In the end, if they can shut down the president of the united states (for whatever cause) they can do it to anyone based on criteria set by CEO and BoD. Within that schema it is only a matter of time until they get around to the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores of this world.
As for King, you're being deeply ahistorical. The megaphone of the day was television, which he was very good at using. Today the megaphone is tweeter, maybe fb. The game never changes, only the players. Trump's election cannot be attributed solely to the megaphone in any case: like all demagogues he recognized and addressed a rage in the electorate to which "the establishment" was willfully blind.
Got it.
Private companies--as Cervantes has noted--have a right to regulate their platforms. That said, Jack Dorsey has admitted his company "failed" because it had to censor (expel) Shitler. And I'm agreeing with you that any large company needs to be regulated for precisely the reasons Cervantes has been addressing in his screeds on property. This never should have happened in the first place. And yes, people would have voted for Shitler regardless. The twit's Twitter abuse started primarily after he was elected.
What kind of person "tweets" instead of communicating? Well, for starters, one who understands he can create chaos with outlandish, libelous potshots, given the platform. Shitler didn't start the fire; he just piled tons of greasy rags on it.
Free speech is limited. Hate speech must not be allowed; see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html
See also Nonviolent Communication:A Language of Life (Marshall Rosenberg). Speech IS violence when it threatens and contains hate.
Re: King, I knew you'd say that :-) And you're right, to a point. But the megaphone is a lot larger, and unregulated, too. Almost anybody can get on Twitter. Not everybody could, or can, get on TV.
As for Shitler's "recognition" of the rage in America: perhaps he is so evil that he did it intentionally. That's possible. But either way, he's a monster and was allowed by the corporate media to do what he did. They are generally clueless and don't realize he's not playing by any rules at all ... just the filling of his exponentially growing ego, since he has no core or substance.
I've been calling my senators and congresswoman to say that we need to pass legislation barring anyone with multiple sexual assault or violence accusations from running for office; we also need to have candidates evaluated by a large, neutral board of psychologists/psychiatrists to bar anyone with profound mental illness from running for federal office.
Post a Comment