35
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
35 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32227 readers
432 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, but this could easily go the other way. A far right executive could use its power to pressure these companies to remove what it considers misinformation.
This is clearly a violation of the first amendment as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation are by definition protected forms of speech.
I think I agree with the judge here in that the government should not be pressuring social media to censor legally protected speech. It is no matter if that speech is true or untrue, as long as it is protected speech the government should not have the power to censor speech it does not agree with.
One can easily imagine a right wing executive pressuring social media to remove speech it seams false or malevolent. The things the right view as misinformation, malinformation or disinformation would be expansive I am sure, and would no doubt target women's health, trans liberation or any attempt by the working class to organize. The government should not have this power to censor speech that is covered by the first amendment.
False statements of facts are not always protected by the first amendment
False statements of facts are not always protected by the first amendment
How so? The government/corporate power does not have the power or right to dictate truth.
While there are specific laws against fraud and false advertising there is no law that what is published in the public square must be true.
Telling people lies when it comes to health isn't protected by the first amendment. People think the first amendment is this vast catch all and you can just say anything but it's really not. You really can't just say anything you want. A example of speech that's not protected is fraud, so if I make a website or blog that looks legit and it says drink bleach for magic powers that wouldn't be covered under free speech, or telling someone to kill themselves isn't protected either. The first amendment isn't really that broad when you get into the nitty gritty
I absolutely agree that making false medical claims in advertising is not protected speech. Fraud and threats are already criminal and should treated as such, but the types of speech that are being censored are not primarily illegal forms of speech. The types of speech that are being censored are not limited to cases of fraud or threats, they are whatever types of speech the current executive branch deems harmful. I think that is dangerous, even if I also personally agree that those particular types of legal speech are indeed harmful.
I mean according to the article the only stuff they asked to be taken off was false covid stuff... So I don't think that falls under first amendment rights. It was stuff like the covid vaccine doesn't work and it will give you AIDS, kinda like yelling fire when there is no fire isn't protected
I think there is a case to be made that false statements in the public made with the explicit of driving public or political discourse or to drive verifiably unproven sentiments should be considered fraudulent or anti-democratic, or at the very least that the burden falls on the media to brand the information as verifiably misleading.
Allowing bad faith actors to exist seems to be a major issue strictly because their information is spread without context.