DiscussMormonism.com

Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
...
“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

That design flaw is free speech itself. So in a nation filled with gifted people to lead the effort on government media policy and positions, Biden selected a person who rejects the very essence of free speech. Stengel promises the “unity” of a nation silenced by government speech codes and censorship. If no one has a megaphone, free speech is no longer a problem.

...
This is the party line for Democrats - [url=https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/17/a ... vaEHXts_Zc]All Speech is Not Equal>/url]
...
This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”
...
So, is taking away megaphones and having media companies "monitored" by the government an agreeable cornerstone of liberty? of democracy? of America?

This is definitely a disturbing development. The answer to unwanted speech is not to limit it or cancel it based on what some appointed speech monitor says. If one views speech as "bad" the answer is more speech to counter and expose the supposed "bad" speech, not less speech. Who will monitor the monitors to make sure their political aims are put in check if no opposing speech is allowed? This is why the 1st amendment was always about politics and power and should always be free and open.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

If one views speech as "bad" the answer is more speech to counter and expose the supposed "bad" speech, not less speech.

Doctor -

1. Considering resource availability and reach, how do you propose to do that?

2. How often should private firms be required to broadcast someone else’s opinion?

3. At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?

canpakes wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:09 pm

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

If one views speech as "bad" the answer is more speech to counter and expose the supposed "bad" speech, not less speech.

Doctor -

1. Considering resource availability and reach, how do you propose to do that?

I believe the poster was illuminating the danger or absurdity of the entire monitor idea...ergo, no resource needed as there should not be a first monitor anyhow.

2. How often should private firms be required to broadcast someone else’s opinion?

never.

3. At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?

Honestly, at no point.
The often used example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, but is that really "speech"? If it is considered speech then I still believe it is protected. Voting and this board have proven, often, that stupidity is a right - and an unavoidable consequence of living.
Any infringement upon another person's freedom/liberty as a direct result of your speech can only be considered under the circumstances and under any applicable law. If I speak a lie to you in order to acquire money from you, is that speech? I am certainly allowed to speak it...but if you give me the money, then that infringement is a crime. If you walk away and say "liar", then imho, no crime.
Adding "hate" to something does not magically elevate it criminal - hate is a religious and moral principle and the legal system should refrain from regulating those principles - yes?

canpakes wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:09 pm

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

If one views speech as "bad" the answer is more speech to counter and expose the supposed "bad" speech, not less speech.

Doctor -

1. Considering resource availability and reach, how do you propose to do that?

2. How often should private firms be required to broadcast someone else’s opinion?

3. At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?

Break up Twitter, Facebook, and Google. If we had 20 such companies competing for space, no one company could control speech. Let me ask you this: what if the new conservative channel Parler started gobbling up the competition and became the only game in town? I think you would want an alternative or many alternatives, right? Would you want to have to pass through a monitor prior to posting here?

At a certain point, the monopolist becomes the public square and should be subject to 1st amendment regulation, regardless of whether or not it is private. The trend of offloading our rights onto corporations needs to stop.

The limits on free speech should be few. Here is a Wikipedia article that summarizes how Supreme Court has determined limits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... exceptions

Further, these limits should be subjected to a balancing test where harms are weighed against possible good as a result of any limits.

subgenius wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:18 pm

canpakes wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:09 pm

Doctor -

1. Considering resource availability and reach, how do you propose to do that?

I believe the poster was illuminating the danger or absurdity of the entire monitor idea...ergo, no resource needed as there should not be a first monitor anyhow.

The good Doctor will likely speak for himself.

3. At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?

Honestly, at no point.

Therefore, you interpret that there is no need to prosecute slander, or perjury, or terrorist threats, as example?

What do you see as the reason for the existence of the First Amendment? What is the definition of ‘free speech’? Is there any concept of ‘public good’ supported within the Constitution that counters your idea that virtually all speech is ‘free speech’?

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:26 pm

canpakes wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:09 pm

Doctor -

1. Considering resource availability and reach, how do you propose to do that?

2. How often should private firms be required to broadcast someone else’s opinion?

3. At what point, if any, does ‘free speech’ require any limits at all?

Break up Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

On what basis? These are resources that add to the speech landscape, they have not limited that landscape. What is the basis used to ‘break them up’ and how does a government then guarantee an alternative platform, and for what aim?

Do I need the government to, say, mandate a platform to promote anti-semitism if I perceive that there isn’t enough anti-Semitic content available via a particular platform?

If we had 20 such companies competing for space, no one company could control speech.

We’ve tried that experiment with companies that manufacture computers, and even with browsers. There’s no guarantee that availability will result in use or preference.

Let me ask you this: what if the new conservative channel Parler started gobbling up the competition and became the only game in town? I think you would want an alternative or many alternatives, right? Would you want to have to pass through a monitor prior to posting here?

Availability of competition is nice, but what need is there to mandate alternate ‘tweeting’ platforms, again?

canpakes wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:48 pm

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:26 pm

Break up Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

On what basis? These are resources that add to the speech landscape, they have not limited that landscape. What is the basis used to ‘break them up’ and how does a government then guarantee an alternative platform, and for what aim?

Do I need the government to, say, mandate a platform to promote anti-semitism if I perceive that there isn’t enough anti-Semitic content available via a particular platform?

If we had 20 such companies competing for space, no one company could control speech.

We’ve tried that experiment with companies that manufacture computers, and even with browsers. There’s no guarantee that availability will result in use or preference.

Let me ask you this: what if the new conservative channel Parler started gobbling up the competition and became the only game in town? I think you would want an alternative or many alternatives, right? Would you want to have to pass through a monitor prior to posting here?

Availability of competition is nice, but what need is there to mandate alternate ‘tweeting’ platforms, again?

The idea behind anti-trust is to not grant too much economic power to the few, which always turns into political power that is used to protect the economic power of the monopolists, or monarchy. Twitter shut down stories it didn't like in order to affect the election. An effective alternative would have blunted Twitter. Would you have supported a company that pushed the Hunter Biden story and deplatformed those who offered alternatives?

Today, Google controls advertising too much. It has the power to make or break business and it does so by deplatforming people and entities on YouTube. It also manipulates search results for the same ends. Breaking up this power will only help in spreading the wealth and in turn political power to the more instead of the few.

Today, Donald Trump is disfavored. Who is to say that the monopolist class won't change and start supporting a Trump like figure in the future? Free speech, with few restrictions, helps prevent this by sounding the alarm if needed or offering alternatives to the monopolistic king that only wants to maintain power.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:15 pm

The idea behind anti-trust is to not grant too much economic power to the few, which always turns into political power that is used to protect the economic power of the monopolists, or monarchy.

Agreed.

Twitter shut down stories it didn't like in order to affect the election. An effective alternative would have blunted Twitter. Would you have supported a company that pushed the Hunter Biden story and deplatformed those who offered alternatives?

What is the difference between Twitter supposedly affecting the election in this way, versus the folks pushing the Hunter Biden conspiracies also attempting to affect the election? And to what extent does the latter groups’s dependence on the former’s resources play into this? What gives that latter group greater right to try to disseminate those stories versus the former’s right to control their platform?

Today, Google controls advertising too much. It has the power to make or break business and it does so by deplatforming people and entities on YouTube. It also manipulates search results for the same ends. Breaking up this power will only help in spreading the wealth and in turn political power to the more instead of the few.

There are valid concerns about Google’s advertising business practices. These should be examined. But the opposite side of this is that I can still use Google to find businesses that would otherwise have to rely on much more expensive and less-effective methods (‘phone books’, lol, or billboards, or radio and print advertising). When I search via Google, I always blow right past the top results labeled ‘advertisements’. Anyone can do that. This ability, along with the chance to discover new businesses in a way unavailable on just about any other platform, also represents a net gain for businesses that might only need to spend a few hundred dollars on a webpage to be found by web crawlers and then returned in the search I’ve requested.

Today, Donald Trump is disfavored. Who is to say that the monopolist class won't change and start supporting a Trump like figure in the future? Free speech, with few restrictions, helps prevent this by sounding the alarm if needed or offering alternatives to the monopolistic king that only wants to maintain power.

Sure, but that reality also doesn’t mandate that the same set of folks that you are cautioning against then should have the power to break up alternate communications options simply because that landscape doesn’t favor their aims.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

This is definitely a disturbing development. The answer to unwanted speech is not to limit it or cancel it based on what some appointed speech monitor says. If one views speech as "bad" the answer is more speech to counter and expose the supposed "bad" speech, not less speech. Who will monitor the monitors to make sure their political aims are put in check if no opposing speech is allowed? This is why the 1st amendment was always about politics and power and should always be free and open.

This is what I have believed all of my life, and is the foundation of my near absolute view of free speech. But reflecting on my experience with discourse over climate change and watching political discourse over the last four, I am forced to admit that I've been clinging to a fairy tale that may have been true in the late 1700s, but is no longer true today. The appeal in this fairy tale is that "true" speech has the ability to "expose" false speech and that this alone will allow true speech to prevail. But, at least today, that's exactly backwards.

As they say, a lie goes around the world twice while the truth is lacing up its shoes. Or, in the formulation I've come to prefer: "The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude greater than to produce it." This has become known as Brandolini's Law or the "BS asymmetry principle." It is what makes the "Gish Gallop" so effective in debates. It has been illustrated on this board hundreds of times when someone drops a cut-and-pasted BS factoid on the board and someone takes the time and makes the effort to demonstrate that it is BS.

If that weren't bad enough, it's become clear that our brains aren't persuaded by true speech to let go of false speech. Our brains cling to false speech that fits with our existing world view and are near impenetrable to true speech that contradicts that view. It's a byproduct of brains that create stories to minimize our discomfort, with truth being a secondary or tertiary concern.

The result is similar to Gresham's Law, which says that bad money drives good money out of circulation. False speech drives true speech out of circulation. True speech cannot physically keep up with false speech and cannot dislodge false ideas at a meaningful rate.

So, where does that leave us? First, I think we ought to stop kidding ourselves that good/true speech is any kind of remedy or solution to bad/false speech. Stop trying to avoid some hard issues that face us by reciting fairy tales. The value of free speech needs to be justified by something other than a false rationalization.

My first reaction is to say, whatever the consequences of the deliberate dissemination of outright lies by our current political leaders, we have no reason to expect the results to be better by giving the government authority to determine the truth or falsity of speech. How much better off would we be if Trump had legal enforcement tools to stop his opponents from even speaking? (Trump supporters can insert Nanci Pelosi for the equivalent effect).

My second is to return to a line of thought prompted by Sub's last free speech post: how does the current effort to sabotage our election process through the deliberate telling of lies stack up with the already recognized exceptions to free speech? The ones that come closest are perjury and lying to the FBI. What is the rationale for criminalizing pure speech in those two contexts? The rationale is the destructive effect of lying in those contexts on our government's ability to function. I don't think it's much of a leap to say that telling deliberate lies about the election process has the same corrosive effects on something that is foundational to our system of government. So, why not craft a law that prohibits government officials from deliberately making false or misleading statements about the process or results of an election? This is not a matter of political speech because, once the votes are cast, we have legal processes for counting the votes. But those are legal questions -- not political ones.

Would such a loss pass constitutional muster? I think so. In the case Subs recently cited, the three most conservative Justices filed a dissent in which they said that false speech has zero constitutional protection. From a constitutional standpoint, it is very difficult justify deliberately false speech that causes harm. The Justices that struck down the law, which made it illegal to falsely claim that one had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, was that it was over broad -- it applied on its face to situations where there was no harm. Given that the Court recognizes the harm caused by false speech in court or criminal investigations, the harm to our system of free and fair elections is, I think, very likely to pass constitutional muster.

If we're not willing to do that, release the Kraken. Any and all speech goes, including doxxing, picketing of homes, calling out on the street or restaurants, advertiser boycotts. These tactics are no more uncivil that the deliberate telling of lies to destroy public confidence in our fundamental institutions. If the effective solution to false speech is not more speech, perhaps it is more accountability.