You demand a simple answer to a complex question. My concern is that any answer provided gets used as a weapon to demonize my motivation. You might say that if someone argues in favor of free speech that therefore the supporter must want people to be harassed or exposed to vulgar language, when that isn't the case at all. It is possible to support free speech and open discussion, but not vulgarity and harassment.
As badly as the Supreme Court has allowed for town squares, I would think. Which hasn't turned out so bad after all, despite what the naysayers at the time of the decision imagined.
That said, sites like Twitter are not public forums. It is a private company platform that they are allowing speech upon and...
From Justia.c o m:
"The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned".
"...free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights..."
I can't dig through the opinion directly, and I suppose that you can argue that the syllabus summary is completely off base. But the court case sure doesn't seem like it's a big nothing burger. Quite the opposite.
It did not say that. It said that the ONE situation as described in Pruneyard, in which the shopping center WAS the town, and operated the streets and the traffic lights and did basically everything a government would do...
I'm a little skeptical. Not only do I not read this as being the basis for the case, but the free speech element has apparently spread to other shopping malls across the state! The Fasion Valley case from San Diego, Costcos all over... I've only visited California twice, so I can't say that I know how things are run out there. But I find it hard to believe that all of these shopping malls across the state are run as government entities such that they all now qualify for Pruneyard protection only on that basis.
There is no law, anywhere, that says that you have to treat all speech equally, and that if you don't it somehow leads to you facing liability.
California state constitution, article 1 section 2:
"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
This has lead to a case Pruneyard v Robbins, in which all speech became allowed in the public areas of California shopping center parking lots. Owners have been unable to prevent any of the free speech, whether they disagree or not. Instead, the individual becomes responsible for their own speech. It sounds kind of like an agreement with section 230, and especially that the individual speaker is the publisher. And social media platforms seek to avoid liability by NOT being considered a publisher.
Certainly, property owners have engaged in a number of activities and court cases in an attempt to chip away at free speech in a public forum. Manhattan v Halleck dealt with a similar subject regarding public access tv stations. But to say no law exists whatsoever might not be correct.
When I talk about ideas that don’t deserve a spot at the table in the marketplace of ideas, that is what I am talking about.
You have identified a topic, slavery, that has been so thoroughly defeated that there is negligible discussion on it, and has been so resounding defeated in the past that you feel that you feel that any debate is unworthy.
But the same can't be said about a lot of ideas. And neither you nor I aren't arbiters of which ideas have supposedly been "debunked". I suggest to you that with some polls welcoming the national guard to restore order against ongoing riots, that perhaps it is a mistake to ignore this topic. That immediately dismissing the idea as unworthy of editorial consideration might make it more popular, and decrease trust of publications when a lot of people ask "why arent we bringing in the army to restore order?"
As an aside, if Trump has some kind of mutant superpower, it is the ability to understand what a lot of the his supporters are thinking privately, and then he writes it down on Twitter. It's what drives people to connect with him.
Those platforms are privately owned and can legally moderate third party content based on political bias, since neither the First Amendment nor 47 U.S.C. § 230 have a “politically neutral” requirement for the protection of the rights of speech and association.
Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral. Building a free speech platform and permitting all speech in order to gain market dominance, but then engaging in censorship based upon political bias is a morally reprehensible stance to take.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
The movement he [Cotton] represents — he is often identified as the “future of Trumpism” — is ethnocentric and authoritarian... Such a movement is incommensurate with the shared premises that small-l liberals take for granted... By Sulzberger’s standard, the GOP is not acting, and cannot act, in good faith.
And then the lack of "good faith" is then used as an excuse to pre-determine that Cotton's editorial is unpublishable. Not on the merits of the article, but the perceived viewpoint of the speaker.
Aside from disagreement that Trump is ethnocentric or authoritarian, it can be pointed out that many Democrat positions are also ethnocentric and authoritarian. On that basis, left wing speakers do not meet the editorial "good faith" criteria for publication either!
Of course, I don't actually believe any of that "good faith" mumbo jumbo. It's simply an attempt to justify the censorship based upon political disagreement.
Some ideas don’t deserve the credibility or dignity that comes with a serious, reasoned debate of their merits.
Certainly some ideas are discredited. However, there's an old saying that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and in the Cotton editorial case it means that you had better debate.
Which then gets into some concepts from the article - that some ideas are too dangerous to debate. Or the speaker is not "serious" enough, or dismissed as a "troll". Be careful, or sometimes you get a Brexit, or a 2016 Trump, where the dismissed viewpoint wins an election. As a warning to all viewpoints, if you simply censor an idea with no debate, it might actually gain in popularity. Instead, if it's truly such an indefensible idea, then you ought to be able to win the debate.
I'm probably more extreme than most in arguing for free speech and the importance of listening to viewpoints and ideas that people disagree with.
I dont think that you're nearly as extreme as you think you are. I gotta give you a lot of credit with being able to listen and consider other viewpoints. But you have some downsides 1.) you're okay with some censorship, and 2.) you are permissive of corporations that build a free speech platform and then engage in censorship based upon political bias. An interesting dichotomy, in that you seem generally disapproving of greater corporation power. I've heard from a number of libertarians that are far more extreme than you. You appear to be middle of the road to me.
The issue, again, is whether or not the editorial discretion is well applied. And the evidence -- which goes way beyond that one op-ed -- says that it was not.
The editors SOUGHT OUT the opinion piece from Senator Cotton! It's an opinion from a sitting United States senator, and a position very much supported by millions upon millions of constituents. Just because you disagree with the opinion, or that you can articulate against the opinion does not make it an editorial failure. It just means that someone has a different opinion than you. There is no evidence that the article was so unreasonable as to be predetermined as unpublishable.
The editorial decision was fine until the biased employees in a different division of the newspaper demanded punishment for publishing something with which they disagreed.
It's the new startups that don't have long standing reputations and relationships with users that consumers that abandon first.
I remember years ago when a company challenged market incumbent Microsoft with the slogan "don't be evil". For those smaller companies that can stay afloat in the sea of burdensome regulation, they need to stake out this position, that they're not some fly-by-night operation, that they value privacy more than the established corporations, and generate some loyalty at the expense of those who don't.
Keep in mind that there may be a cost to this. If the level of training an expertise causes each cop to earn a $300k/year salary + benefits, the city will soon be in sorry financial shape (see: Chicago).
The superstar music artists of yesteryear have done nothing innovative recently. They didn't create the meme with the short clip of music in the background. They didn't produce the 6 second tiktok video. They didn't make the internet platform, or the phone app.
But they remember the big payday that they used to receive, and wonder how these billions of views don't result in a royalty cut? The only thing they can do is get mad at Fair Use and demand a return to the old consumption model.
I'm skeptical that if the Trump campaign sends a section 230 defense letter to Twitter that they will put the video back up. Section 512 counterclaim, yes, perhaps. But this might only strengthen the calls for reform, if people want changes to both 230 and 512.
We must not construct a recovery that casts a needless decades-long shadow over our society, entrenches the power of large corporations, and further exacerbates class and racial divides.
Sadly, often the largest of corporations are the only ones able to live up to government regulations. Regulation and oversight comes with a tradeoff, and I'm not just talking about the taxpayer cost to hire the oversight. Big corporations love government regulation because they are the only ones who can afford the cost of compliance. I've seen this happen in the credit industry, so subjecting the contact tracing industry to scrutiny straight out of the gate will most certainly entrench it.
I seem to remember a situation years ago where the state of Massachusetts was predicted to be the hot new tech center. However, MA enforced its non compete agreements, while CA did not. 20 years later, and we now know that all the entrepreneurs ditched MA for CA, largely because of the non compete issue. From a tax revenue standpoint for the state government, this has probably been one of the biggest blunders within our lifetime.
So it makes me wonder if a similar loss of campaign staff quality might be experienced in 2020, due to the NDA?
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re:
I think that I've explained my position sufficiently. I also believe your responses have made yours clear, as well. I'm glad that you got to respond.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re:
You demand a simple answer to a complex question. My concern is that any answer provided gets used as a weapon to demonize my motivation. You might say that if someone argues in favor of free speech that therefore the supporter must want people to be harassed or exposed to vulgar language, when that isn't the case at all. It is possible to support free speech and open discussion, but not vulgarity and harassment.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re:
As badly as the Supreme Court has allowed for town squares, I would think. Which hasn't turned out so bad after all, despite what the naysayers at the time of the decision imagined.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re:
So you're asking whether I agree with Brandenburg v Ohio? Do you?
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re: Re: Not so fast
From Justia.c o m:
"The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned".
"...free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights..."
I can't dig through the opinion directly, and I suppose that you can argue that the syllabus summary is completely off base. But the court case sure doesn't seem like it's a big nothing burger. Quite the opposite.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re: Re: Not so fast
I'm a little skeptical. Not only do I not read this as being the basis for the case, but the free speech element has apparently spread to other shopping malls across the state! The Fasion Valley case from San Diego, Costcos all over... I've only visited California twice, so I can't say that I know how things are run out there. But I find it hard to believe that all of these shopping malls across the state are run as government entities such that they all now qualify for Pruneyard protection only on that basis.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Not so fast
California state constitution, article 1 section 2:
"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
This has lead to a case Pruneyard v Robbins, in which all speech became allowed in the public areas of California shopping center parking lots. Owners have been unable to prevent any of the free speech, whether they disagree or not. Instead, the individual becomes responsible for their own speech. It sounds kind of like an agreement with section 230, and especially that the individual speaker is the publisher. And social media platforms seek to avoid liability by NOT being considered a publisher.
Certainly, property owners have engaged in a number of activities and court cases in an attempt to chip away at free speech in a public forum. Manhattan v Halleck dealt with a similar subject regarding public access tv stations. But to say no law exists whatsoever might not be correct.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re:
You have identified a topic, slavery, that has been so thoroughly defeated that there is negligible discussion on it, and has been so resounding defeated in the past that you feel that you feel that any debate is unworthy.
But the same can't be said about a lot of ideas. And neither you nor I aren't arbiters of which ideas have supposedly been "debunked". I suggest to you that with some polls welcoming the national guard to restore order against ongoing riots, that perhaps it is a mistake to ignore this topic. That immediately dismissing the idea as unworthy of editorial consideration might make it more popular, and decrease trust of publications when a lot of people ask "why arent we bringing in the army to restore order?"
As an aside, if Trump has some kind of mutant superpower, it is the ability to understand what a lot of the his supporters are thinking privately, and then he writes it down on Twitter. It's what drives people to connect with him.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re:
On supporting Fidel Castro and communism:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-60-minutes-interview- cooper.html
On Obama building cages to detain immigrant children:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/
On the Supreme Court, EPA, military generals, and executive decisions:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/
On opposition of school choice (bonus: also ethnocentric reasoning for opposition):
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/whats-obamas-problem-with-school-choice -108667
Obama enflamed racial tensions:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/03/24/us/george-zimmerman-obama-race-com ments/index.html
Centralized government control of heathcare:
https://thefederalist.com/2016/10/21/obamas-obamacare-speech-proves-hes-authoritarian-don ald-trump/
The ambassador loyalty test:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html
The military loyalty purge list:
https://rense.com/general96/listof.html
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re:
Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral. Building a free speech platform and permitting all speech in order to gain market dominance, but then engaging in censorship based upon political bias is a morally reprehensible stance to take.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re:
If someone actually DID want to support a return of slavery, then yes I would feel compelled to debate against it.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re: Re: Not Really
From the vox article:
And then the lack of "good faith" is then used as an excuse to pre-determine that Cotton's editorial is unpublishable. Not on the merits of the article, but the perceived viewpoint of the speaker.
Aside from disagreement that Trump is ethnocentric or authoritarian, it can be pointed out that many Democrat positions are also ethnocentric and authoritarian. On that basis, left wing speakers do not meet the editorial "good faith" criteria for publication either!
Of course, I don't actually believe any of that "good faith" mumbo jumbo. It's simply an attempt to justify the censorship based upon political disagreement.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re:
Certainly some ideas are discredited. However, there's an old saying that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and in the Cotton editorial case it means that you had better debate.
Which then gets into some concepts from the article - that some ideas are too dangerous to debate. Or the speaker is not "serious" enough, or dismissed as a "troll". Be careful, or sometimes you get a Brexit, or a 2016 Trump, where the dismissed viewpoint wins an election. As a warning to all viewpoints, if you simply censor an idea with no debate, it might actually gain in popularity. Instead, if it's truly such an indefensible idea, then you ought to be able to win the debate.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Not Really
I dont think that you're nearly as extreme as you think you are. I gotta give you a lot of credit with being able to listen and consider other viewpoints. But you have some downsides 1.) you're okay with some censorship, and 2.) you are permissive of corporations that build a free speech platform and then engage in censorship based upon political bias. An interesting dichotomy, in that you seem generally disapproving of greater corporation power. I've heard from a number of libertarians that are far more extreme than you. You appear to be middle of the road to me.
The editors SOUGHT OUT the opinion piece from Senator Cotton! It's an opinion from a sitting United States senator, and a position very much supported by millions upon millions of constituents. Just because you disagree with the opinion, or that you can articulate against the opinion does not make it an editorial failure. It just means that someone has a different opinion than you. There is no evidence that the article was so unreasonable as to be predetermined as unpublishable.
The editorial decision was fine until the biased employees in a different division of the newspaper demanded punishment for publishing something with which they disagreed.
On the post: Protecting Privacy While Promoting Innovation And Competition
I remember years ago when a company challenged market incumbent Microsoft with the slogan "don't be evil". For those smaller companies that can stay afloat in the sea of burdensome regulation, they need to stake out this position, that they're not some fly-by-night operation, that they value privacy more than the established corporations, and generate some loyalty at the expense of those who don't.
On the post: Sheriff Goes All In On Violating The First Amendment After Assaulting A Protester For Carrying A 'F*CK TRUMP' Sign
Re: Re: Re:
Keep in mind that there may be a cost to this. If the level of training an expertise causes each cop to earn a $300k/year salary + benefits, the city will soon be in sorry financial shape (see: Chicago).
On the post: Don Henley Tells Senators: We Must Change Copyright Law... Because The People Like TikTok?
Addicted to Royalties
The superstar music artists of yesteryear have done nothing innovative recently. They didn't create the meme with the short clip of music in the background. They didn't produce the 6 second tiktok video. They didn't make the internet platform, or the phone app.
But they remember the big payday that they used to receive, and wonder how these billions of views don't result in a royalty cut? The only thing they can do is get mad at Fair Use and demand a return to the old consumption model.
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Trump Campaign Video Over Questionable Copyright Claim Demonstrates Why Trump Should Support Section 230
Actual Defense?
I'm skeptical that if the Trump campaign sends a section 230 defense letter to Twitter that they will put the video back up. Section 512 counterclaim, yes, perhaps. But this might only strengthen the calls for reform, if people want changes to both 230 and 512.
On the post: Coronavirus Surveillance Is Far Too Important, And Far Too Dangerous, To Be Left Up To The Private Sector
Sadly, often the largest of corporations are the only ones able to live up to government regulations. Regulation and oversight comes with a tradeoff, and I'm not just talking about the taxpayer cost to hire the oversight. Big corporations love government regulation because they are the only ones who can afford the cost of compliance. I've seen this happen in the credit industry, so subjecting the contact tracing industry to scrutiny straight out of the gate will most certainly entrench it.
On the post: Trump Campaign Non-Disclosure Agreements Again Being Challenged In Court
Non Compete
I seem to remember a situation years ago where the state of Massachusetts was predicted to be the hot new tech center. However, MA enforced its non compete agreements, while CA did not. 20 years later, and we now know that all the entrepreneurs ditched MA for CA, largely because of the non compete issue. From a tax revenue standpoint for the state government, this has probably been one of the biggest blunders within our lifetime.
So it makes me wonder if a similar loss of campaign staff quality might be experienced in 2020, due to the NDA?
Next >>