You're correct that SPJ's ethical rules are not enforced by law in the way that medical and legal ethical codes are. But, as I've said, the ethical codes even in the absence of being straightforwardly backed by statutory law, still can create a common language and common understanding of ethical expectations. For example, we know that reporters have ethical obligations to their sources (don't misrepresent them, don't breach their anonymity if they conditioned their disclosures to you on your protecting them, and so on). And, yes, many journalists break those rules. (And here I note that many doctors and lawyers break their ethical rules--which have a lot more teeth to them--as well.) But for a journalist, credibility depends on sticking to the ethics, plus, as I noted, a journalist with a bad track record on ethics, even in unrelated matters, may find he or she has a tough day in court when it's the journalist's testimony against the plaintiff's. The main point here, though, is that ethical codes have to be bigger than one practitioner--or one company--in order to have the kind of social force it requires to promote ethics and to build trust. Do that bit right, and individual ethical breaches aren't universally prevented, but they are more easily recognized and called out.
There are two pieces of your question, so I'll handle them one at a time.
(1) Licensing boards. We don't want there to be licensing boards for tech companies or tech professionals--requiring that would be the opposite of what Adam Thierer calls "permissionless innovation." But there's no reason to think that licensing boards are even required for professional ethics codes (that include fiduciary obligations) to have teeth. The Society of Professional Journalists has an ethics code, even though you don't have to be licensed to be a journalist--what that code does, even in the absence of licensure, is created a shared consensus expectation of what journalists must do if they are to be considered ethical. (And a journalist who freely violates ethics codes and gets sued for, say, libel is going to have a much weaker defense if he or she was super-casual or super-sloppy about ethics.)
2) How can ethics and fiduciary duties be enforced? Well, at the initial level, if there's an industry-wide ethics framework, then that--like the SPJ ethics code--creates a common language that enables the industry as a whole to judge the ethics-transgressor as unethical. There are real business consequences for most companies to be demonstrably unethical, even if they're not sued or prosecuted over it. At a later level, the standards of car, of loyalty, and of confidentiality that are components of fiduciary duties can be locked into law by legislatures that want to reinforce the protections of Big Tech's clients and customers. And at a still later level, the companies adherence to fiduciary obligations may put them in a position to actual advocate (in courts, in Congress, or wherever) as representatives of user interests, because they have to defend user interests. So it's an evolutionary process, but there's a lot of useful guiding precedent out there in other professions.
I think you mean "incredible" rather than "incredulous." But no one has asserted that "the distributed nature of left-leaning news makes them impervious to such vulnerabilities."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
"You're an American constitutional lawyer (which explains the reference to Brandeis), and so it's fair that you think in terms of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and how it has been defined by the SCOTUS)."
I've also worked with NGOs in 20 different foreign countries on free-speech issues. So it's fair to infer that I'm aware of different foreign and international approaches to freedom of expression. This paper expressly refers to Article 19 of the ICCPR in Part 2. Did you read Part 2?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
C'mon, Axel, sometimes it must dimly occur to you that you're damaged, that there's something wrong with you emotionally, and you're trying to work out by being a troll.
I don't play word games with trolls. I gave a couple of decades to that diversion, but I'm mostly out of it these days.
If you want to know what tips your hand as a troll, it's this: you don't argue substantively. You're not actually interested in the substance of what I wrote enough to read it--and you didn't read it--so of course I know that no exchange with you can be substantive, by definition.
If you were a subtler writer, you might not have been so obvious. You could have done a bit of sealioning, for example.
Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
I just don't play cross-examination games unless I get to be the prosecutor, Axel.
But let's talk about the "globalist" nonsense for a moment. It's super-trivial to observe that different nations and cultures that consider themselves to be committed to free speech disagree on the margins as to what "free speech" means. What's less trivial is to find a conceptual framing that compels people to look past the short-term us-versus-them thinking that leads to bad decisions to censor (or to push the platforms into censorship). The purpose of this long paper is to enable an open-minded reader to consider that some aspects of free-speech/censorship talk are afflicted with binary thinking that doesn't map well to the free-speech environment we're actually in.
Now, you may reasonably infer that I think an open-minded reader is likely to be someone with the kind of attention span it takes to read a longer piece. Obviously, I do. So it should be clear that I didn't write this piece for the kind of person who doesn't recognize that "Je suis Charlie" is a simple, short way to express my sympathies. Certainly you didn't recognize it, even though I thought it was obvious. Perhaps this is because it's not in your own nature to express sympathy. I'm afraid that's an affective disorder that's beyond my ability to address.
It's not a mystery novel. It's an extended argument.
You write: "IMO you are attempting to soft peddle a rather authoritarian approach to speech restrictions, knowing that it will garner much opposition if openly stated upfront." You're not exactly familiar with my work.
You write: "You should be able to clearly state your proposal in one short paragraph, if you are sincere." I think you might be trying to say that I should state my thesis in one short paragraph. But not all essays or academic writings work that way. At any rate, there are proposals in Part 3, which has been published today. (Part 2 was yesterday.)
No, this is not advancing an argument for government control of speech. It's about fixing the disorder that thinks government control is the answer. But this is only the first part of a series--the argument is spelled out in later parts. Be patient.
Of course "authorised" is fine. My point, as I said earlier, is that anything I put in quotation marks has to be a precise quotation. I didn't want to run the risk of any reader or automated process changing "authorised" to "authorized" because I didn't want to be charged with misquoting, in any way, the actual legislative language. Not every [sic] is a derogation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words -- yet still TOO LONG!
I know it's normal Aussie spelling, but I was worried that somewhere in the copy editing process it might get corrected. Since it's a direct quotation from the bill, my view is that one has to make sure no one yields to the temptaiton to correct the accurate spelling in a direct quotation.
On the post: In Search Of A Grand Unified Theory Of Free Expression And Privacy
SPJ's ethical rules
You're correct that SPJ's ethical rules are not enforced by law in the way that medical and legal ethical codes are. But, as I've said, the ethical codes even in the absence of being straightforwardly backed by statutory law, still can create a common language and common understanding of ethical expectations. For example, we know that reporters have ethical obligations to their sources (don't misrepresent them, don't breach their anonymity if they conditioned their disclosures to you on your protecting them, and so on). And, yes, many journalists break those rules. (And here I note that many doctors and lawyers break their ethical rules--which have a lot more teeth to them--as well.) But for a journalist, credibility depends on sticking to the ethics, plus, as I noted, a journalist with a bad track record on ethics, even in unrelated matters, may find he or she has a tough day in court when it's the journalist's testimony against the plaintiff's. The main point here, though, is that ethical codes have to be bigger than one practitioner--or one company--in order to have the kind of social force it requires to promote ethics and to build trust. Do that bit right, and individual ethical breaches aren't universally prevented, but they are more easily recognized and called out.
On the post: In Search Of A Grand Unified Theory Of Free Expression And Privacy
Good question, Mike
There are two pieces of your question, so I'll handle them one at a time.
(1) Licensing boards. We don't want there to be licensing boards for tech companies or tech professionals--requiring that would be the opposite of what Adam Thierer calls "permissionless innovation." But there's no reason to think that licensing boards are even required for professional ethics codes (that include fiduciary obligations) to have teeth. The Society of Professional Journalists has an ethics code, even though you don't have to be licensed to be a journalist--what that code does, even in the absence of licensure, is created a shared consensus expectation of what journalists must do if they are to be considered ethical. (And a journalist who freely violates ethics codes and gets sued for, say, libel is going to have a much weaker defense if he or she was super-casual or super-sloppy about ethics.)
2) How can ethics and fiduciary duties be enforced? Well, at the initial level, if there's an industry-wide ethics framework, then that--like the SPJ ethics code--creates a common language that enables the industry as a whole to judge the ethics-transgressor as unethical. There are real business consequences for most companies to be demonstrably unethical, even if they're not sued or prosecuted over it. At a later level, the standards of car, of loyalty, and of confidentiality that are components of fiduciary duties can be locked into law by legislatures that want to reinforce the protections of Big Tech's clients and customers. And at a still later level, the companies adherence to fiduciary obligations may put them in a position to actual advocate (in courts, in Congress, or wherever) as representatives of user interests, because they have to defend user interests. So it's an evolutionary process, but there's a lot of useful guiding precedent out there in other professions.
On the post: The Splinters Of Our Discontent: A Review Of Network Propaganda
Re:
On the post: The Splinters Of Our Discontent: A Review Of Network Propaganda
Re:
On the post: The Splinters Of Our Discontent: A Review Of Network Propaganda
Re: First Things First
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: where's the beef?
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
I've also worked with NGOs in 20 different foreign countries on free-speech issues. So it's fair to infer that I'm aware of different foreign and international approaches to freedom of expression. This paper expressly refers to Article 19 of the ICCPR in Part 2. Did you read Part 2?
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 2)
Re: Proofreading?
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
I don't play word games with trolls. I gave a couple of decades to that diversion, but I'm mostly out of it these days.
If you want to know what tips your hand as a troll, it's this: you don't argue substantively. You're not actually interested in the substance of what I wrote enough to read it--and you didn't read it--so of course I know that no exchange with you can be substantive, by definition.
If you were a subtler writer, you might not have been so obvious. You could have done a bit of sealioning, for example.
Best!
Mike
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
"Declaring victory"--what are you, 10 years old?
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
I'm an American constitutional lawyer. I signed onto American constitutional law when I got sworn in to the three jurisdictions where I'm admitted.
That should be so obvious that it doesn't require an answer.
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
I'm an American constitutional lawyer. I signed onto American constitutional law when I got sworn in to the three jurisdictions where I'm admitted.
That should be so obvious that it doesn't require an answer.
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re: Re: Re: One part "free speech", 3 parts globalist.
But let's talk about the "globalist" nonsense for a moment. It's super-trivial to observe that different nations and cultures that consider themselves to be committed to free speech disagree on the margins as to what "free speech" means. What's less trivial is to find a conceptual framing that compels people to look past the short-term us-versus-them thinking that leads to bad decisions to censor (or to push the platforms into censorship). The purpose of this long paper is to enable an open-minded reader to consider that some aspects of free-speech/censorship talk are afflicted with binary thinking that doesn't map well to the free-speech environment we're actually in.
Now, you may reasonably infer that I think an open-minded reader is likely to be someone with the kind of attention span it takes to read a longer piece. Obviously, I do. So it should be clear that I didn't write this piece for the kind of person who doesn't recognize that "Je suis Charlie" is a simple, short way to express my sympathies. Certainly you didn't recognize it, even though I thought it was obvious. Perhaps this is because it's not in your own nature to express sympathy. I'm afraid that's an affective disorder that's beyond my ability to address.
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
Re:
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 1)
Re: Re: fun & games
You write: "IMO you are attempting to soft peddle a rather authoritarian approach to speech restrictions, knowing that it will garner much opposition if openly stated upfront." You're not exactly familiar with my work.
You write: "You should be able to clearly state your proposal in one short paragraph, if you are sincere." I think you might be trying to say that I should state my thesis in one short paragraph. But not all essays or academic writings work that way. At any rate, there are proposals in Part 3, which has been published today. (Part 2 was yesterday.)
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 1)
Re:
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 1)
Re: information fiduciary ??
On the post: Last Chance To Opt Out Of #MyHealthRecord, Australians!
Re: English as opposed to American English
On the post: Last Chance To Opt Out Of #MyHealthRecord, Australians!
Re: Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words, but enough about you
On the post: Last Chance To Opt Out Of #MyHealthRecord, Australians!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sloppy writing, many missing words -- yet still TOO LONG!
Next >>