I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
71–80 of 165 posts
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#72I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either. Square this circle: 1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech. 2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent. 3) As businesses, it…
This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…
The exceptions you're listing are mostly real but much more narrow than you're thinking. Only threats of imminent violence are excepted; it's completely protected by the First Amendment to say things like "it's getting to a point where we might have to be violent" or "I would commit violence if suchandsuch were to happen to me", even if other people reasonably find those statements to be stressful and alarming. Similarly, while defamation as such is illegal, it's not defamatory to say something like "John is a stupid fool who can't be trusted", even if I know many people think he's smart and trustworthy and even if his reputation is ruined by my statement.
There's simply no general principle that speech which harms people can be restricted.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#73I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
You have a source for that??
It is not that i think all right wing hosts are liars,they love to play the victim, but all I see as a source is "Joe Rogan says...". Quoting yourself is not a source.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#74I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
"Government coercion" are important keywords used by EFF here.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#75I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
This act wouldn't apply to PACs or former presidents.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#76I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit…
> and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?
Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility).
Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions.
The proper solution to misinformation is standard liability. If you say measles vaccines are useless and cause autism, neither of which is true, and someone’s kid dies of measles after listening to you, you cut them a cheque. (But don’t go to jail.)
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.
There's a very important distinction to be made. Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private platforms happens because a large number of people organize in protest against such rhetoric. Advertisers see this and don't want to be associated with it, so the ad-driven platforms make the obvious choice to remove the Nazis. This is an example of people exercising their free speech and their often overlooked freedom of/from asso…
[deleted]
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do you agree this bill is positive?
But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
> this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights
No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#79I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit…
> and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility). Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions. The proper solution t…
There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."
Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are those things? Googling didn’t help.
[flagged]
> Biden administration doing everything in their power to block discussion of a safe and effective treatment for Covid
I've seen it discussed half a million times.
> spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies.
Whose investments?