John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment

[BradStevens]

Maybe. It will be interesting to see if it's litigated and, if so, how that turns out.

Political ads are pretty famously exempted from federal truth in advertising laws. But candidates can sue for defamation.

I doubt it is litigated. Braun pulled back the ad, slapped the disclaimer on it, and then republished it. In fact, that type of statutory requirement is the least restrictive means the CA judge was referring to re the deep fakes.

1A jurisprudence is full of balancing, testing of other means, and burdens of proof based on the type of speech/restrictions at issue. It's not as black and white as a lot of people assume.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I doubt it is litigated. Braun pulled back the ad, slapped the disclaimer on it, and then republished it. In fact, that type of statutory requirement is the least restrictive means the CA judge was referring to re the deep fakes.

1A jurisprudence is full of balancing, testing of other means, and burdens of proof based on the type of speech/restrictions at issue. It's not as black and white as a lot of people assume.

I didn't necessarily mean that the Braun campaign would litigate it or that it would happen anytime soon. I just meant by somebody, at some time.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm sure that there are many politicians on both sides of the aisle that would like to be the gatekeeper of information that is disseminated to the public.

Instead, we've handed that over to Musk and Zuckerberg.

 

[BradStevens]

Instead, we've handed that over to Musk and Zuckerberg.

And the WC mods. Fascists.

 

[UncleMark]

And the WC mods. Fascists.

Leave stoll out of this. He's trying to lighten up.

 

[NPT]

Instead, we've handed that over to Musk and Zuckerberg.

That is the problem... everyone has agenda. We have CNN, MSNBCm], Foxnews, and social media spewing out their agenda but at least with most social media it's not just one side.

 

[Spartans9312]

“Curbing” Free Speech: John Kerry Criticizes the First Amendment as “a Major Block” for Censorship

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent remarks of former Secretary of State John Kerry to the World Economic Forum, the latest in an array of powerful American politicians warning ab…

jonathanturley.org

Turley’s article on the subject.

Free is absolutely necessary to continue having a democratic republic.

 

[dbmhoosier]

They don't even hide it anymore. They know the only chance in hell they stand is to lie.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

They don't even hide it anymore. They know the only chance in hell they stand is to lie.

You understand those two sentences are contradictory, right?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They don't even hide it anymore. They know the only chance in hell they stand is to lie.

View embedded media

Unless social media companies take down things people write that we don’t want them to write….“We lose total control.”

What a remarkable thing to say.

 

[stollcpa]

Who gets to determine the regulation?

No, the farther we can keep government away from the Internet — including and especially social media - the better.

We don’t need regulation of speech.

Seems to me the only regulation we need is that social media needs to allow all speech with no algorithms.

Extreme I know.

 

[BradStevens]

Seems to me the only regulation we need is that social media needs to allow all speech with no algorithms.

Extreme I know.

That’s not a bad idea.

 

[PhyloeBedoe]

Seems to me the only regulation we need is that social media needs to allow all speech with no algorithms.

Extreme I know.

I’m a piss poor communicator, because that’s what I’ve been trying to suggest all along.

 

[stollcpa]

I’m a piss poor communicator, because that’s what I’ve been trying to suggest all along.

I am piss pour too. Lol.

 

[dbmhoosier]

This is why they want to end the 1st Amendment.

 

[UncleMark]

Seems to me the only regulation we need is that social media needs to allow all speech with no algorithms.

Extreme I know.

All Section 230 does is shield the platforms from any legal accountability for the content they publish. Taking that away would allow for a COH approach to letting the litigators and the judges and juries decide how much or how little they need to allow.

 

[UncleMark]

Looks like Ron DeSantis has an issue with the First Amendment as well.

Ron DeSantis’ Administration Is Threatening to Prosecute the Media for Airing Pro-Choice Ads

There is a perverse irony here.

slate.com

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Seems to me the only regulation we need is that social media needs to allow all speech with no algorithms.

Extreme I know.

There's no such thing as "no algorithm." When you go on social media, the server has to decide what out of the gazillions upon gazillions of posts to send to your computer. What makes that decision is an algorithm. There is no avoiding it.

 

[stollcpa]

There's no such thing as "no algorithm." When you go on social media, the server has to decide what out of the gazillions upon gazillions of posts to send to your computer. What makes that decision is an algorithm. There is no avoiding it.

What’s the answer to stopping them from leading people around like cattle? I think I know your answer.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What’s the answer to stopping them from leading people around like cattle? I think I know your answer.

Don't use it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There's no such thing as "no algorithm." When you go on social media, the server has to decide what out of the gazillions upon gazillions of posts to send to your computer. What makes that decision is an algorithm. There is no avoiding it.

I was going to say this.

 

[stollcpa]

Don't use it.

That’s going to happen.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Looks like Ron DeSantis has an issue with the First Amendment as well.

Ron DeSantis’ Administration Is Threatening to Prosecute the Media for Airing Pro-Choice Ads

There is a perverse irony here.

slate.com

This is utterly indefensible. And it’s not the first time that DeSantis has done something that was a flagrant affront to the 1A.

If he has a problem with the messaging of supporters of the abortion amendment, the response is to rebut it…not to squelch it — even if his ostensible reasoning is that it’s false. Government has no role to play in refereeing anybody’s speech. Period.

 

[hoot1]

There are no neutral editors in the press. And there never have been. In fact, there are no neutral people.

And it’s nothing but a good thing that those people no longer exercise much control over the dissemination of information and ideas.

The answer to bad speech has *always* been good speech….not the suppression of bad speech.

And, once again, Kerry is clearly airing a lament about the 1st Amendment as a roadblock to his ability to “curb those entities”.

The title of my thread is entirely appropriate.

Craze, if there are few to no neutral people have we reached the point where we are hopelessly divided ?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Craze, if there are few to no neutral people have we reached the point where we are hopelessly divided ?

I don't think so. Because I think bias is inherent in human nature - it never hasn't been present in all of us.

I don't even want to cast it in a bad light, really. I'm just as biased as anybody else. I do make a good faith effort to be cognizant of it. Because having biases (which we all have) and seeing things through their filters, while considering or presenting ourselves as neutral and objective, necessarily puts us in a place of falsehood. It's not our biases, preferences, and passions which close our minds towards alternative views and arguments. It's an unchallenged denial that we even have biases, preferences, and passion which closes our minds.

Anybody who is so convinced that their views are not just the right ones but are indeed the only valid ones almost certainly isn't going to be receptive to anything -- be it fact or argument -- which might call them into question. So I just don't think genuine neutrality is attainable when passions and biases are involved.

As a passionate Colts fan, it's not hard for me to be neutral when two NFC teams I don't care about are playing each other. But that's not the case when it's two AFC teams that, for instance, I expect the Colts might be competing with for a playoff spot -- let alone when it's the Colts themselves.

However, I can't imagine a sports fan being in a state of denial about any bias they have in favor of the team they support. But when it comes to peoples' opinions about political issues, candidates, parties, etc., I think a lot of people discount, deny, downplay, or simply aren't even aware of their biases.

This is why a whole bunch of people who were outraged by allegations from Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them seem totally oblivious to E. Jean Carroll's similar allegations about Donald Trump. And vice versa.

In truth, these people are entirely motivated by political bias -- while convincing themselves (and hoping to convince others) that they're actually motivated by outrage over the alleged actions of Clinton/Trump. It's easy to say they're being deliberately disingenuous. But I think it's probably more often the case that they're just in denial about the dispositive role their political bias plays in how they view those two situations.

So why don't I think we're hopelessly divided? Because I think, in spite of our biases and passions, we still occupy a lot more common ground than we realize. At least, certainly hope that's the case -- because, if it's not, then you're right to use the word "hopelessly" in this question.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't think so. Because I think bias is inherent in human nature - it never hasn't been present in all of us.

I don't even want to cast it in a bad light, really. I'm just as biased as anybody else. I do make a good faith effort to be cognizant of it. Because having biases (which we all have) and seeing things through their filters, while considering or presenting ourselves as neutral and objective, necessarily puts us in a place of falsehood. It's not our biases, preferences, and passions which close our minds towards alternative views and arguments. It's an unchallenged denial that we even have biases, preferences, and passion which closes our minds.

Anybody who is so convinced that their views are not just the right ones but are indeed the only valid ones almost certainly isn't going to be receptive to anything -- be it fact or argument -- which might call them into question. So I just don't think genuine neutrality is attainable when passions and biases are involved.

As a passionate Colts fan, it's not hard for me to be neutral when two NFC teams I don't care about are playing each other. But that's not the case when it's two AFC teams that, for instance, I expect the Colts might be competing with for a playoff spot -- let alone when it's the Colts themselves.

However, I can't imagine a sports fan being in a state of denial about any bias they have in favor of the team they support. But when it comes to peoples' opinions about political issues, candidates, parties, etc., I think a lot of people discount, deny, downplay, or simply aren't even aware of their biases.

This is why a whole bunch of people who were outraged by allegations from Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them seem totally oblivious to E. Jean Carroll's similar allegations about Donald Trump. And vice versa.

In truth, these people are entirely motivated by political bias -- while convincing themselves (and hoping to convince others) that they're actually motivated by outrage over the alleged actions of Clinton/Trump. It's easy to say they're being deliberately disingenuous. But I think it's probably more often the case that they're just in denial about the dispositive role their political bias plays in how they view those two situations.

So why don't I think we're hopelessly divided? Because I think, in spite of our biases and passions, we still occupy a lot more common ground than we realize. At least, certainly hope that's the case -- because, if it's not, then you're right to use the word "hopelessly" in this question.

Bravo. This is why you are considered one of our best posters.

 

[BradStevens]

I don't think so. Because I think bias is inherent in human nature - it never hasn't been present in all of us.

I don't even want to cast it in a bad light, really. I'm just as biased as anybody else. I do make a good faith effort to be cognizant of it. Because having biases (which we all have) and seeing things through their filters, while considering or presenting ourselves as neutral and objective, necessarily puts us in a place of falsehood. It's not our biases, preferences, and passions which close our minds towards alternative views and arguments. It's an unchallenged denial that we even have biases, preferences, and passion which closes our minds.

Anybody who is so convinced that their views are not just the right ones but are indeed the only valid ones almost certainly isn't going to be receptive to anything -- be it fact or argument -- which might call them into question. So I just don't think genuine neutrality is attainable when passions and biases are involved.

As a passionate Colts fan, it's not hard for me to be neutral when two NFC teams I don't care about are playing each other. But that's not the case when it's two AFC teams that, for instance, I expect the Colts might be competing with for a playoff spot -- let alone when it's the Colts themselves.

However, I can't imagine a sports fan being in a state of denial about any bias they have in favor of the team they support. But when it comes to peoples' opinions about political issues, candidates, parties, etc., I think a lot of people discount, deny, downplay, or simply aren't even aware of their biases.

This is why a whole bunch of people who were outraged by allegations from Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them seem totally oblivious to E. Jean Carroll's similar allegations about Donald Trump. And vice versa.

In truth, these people are entirely motivated by political bias -- while convincing themselves (and hoping to convince others) that they're actually motivated by outrage over the alleged actions of Clinton/Trump. It's easy to say they're being deliberately disingenuous. But I think it's probably more often the case that they're just in denial about the dispositive role their political bias plays in how they view those two situations.

So why don't I think we're hopelessly divided? Because I think, in spite of our biases and passions, we still occupy a lot more common ground than we realize. At least, certainly hope that's the case -- because, if it's not, then you're right to use the word "hopelessly" in this question.

Agree with this and I'd just tack on here that some people have passions about abstract values, not political parties, teams, etc. For example, I think some people actually have a passion for objectivity and neutrality. That biases them, too, in certain ways and might make them even more unwilling to acknowledge that bias. Nor does a passion for something guarantee one can achieve it.

 

[UncleMark]

Agree with this and I'd just tack on here that some people have passions about abstract values, not political parties, teams, etc. For example, I think some people actually have a passion for objectivity and neutrality. That biases them, too, in certain ways and might make them even more unwilling to acknowledge that bias. Nor does a passion for something guarantee one can achieve it.

I wish the word passion was struck from the language. Such overused bullshit.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

I don't think so. Because I think bias is inherent in human nature - it never hasn't been present in all of us.

I don't even want to cast it in a bad light, really. I'm just as biased as anybody else. I do make a good faith effort to be cognizant of it. Because having biases (which we all have) and seeing things through their filters, while considering or presenting ourselves as neutral and objective, necessarily puts us in a place of falsehood. It's not our biases, preferences, and passions which close our minds towards alternative views and arguments. It's an unchallenged denial that we even have biases, preferences, and passion which closes our minds.

Anybody who is so convinced that their views are not just the right ones but are indeed the only valid ones almost certainly isn't going to be receptive to anything -- be it fact or argument -- which might call them into question. So I just don't think genuine neutrality is attainable when passions and biases are involved.

As a passionate Colts fan, it's not hard for me to be neutral when two NFC teams I don't care about are playing each other. But that's not the case when it's two AFC teams that, for instance, I expect the Colts might be competing with for a playoff spot -- let alone when it's the Colts themselves.

However, I can't imagine a sports fan being in a state of denial about any bias they have in favor of the team they support. But when it comes to peoples' opinions about political issues, candidates, parties, etc., I think a lot of people discount, deny, downplay, or simply aren't even aware of their biases.

This is why a whole bunch of people who were outraged by allegations from Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them seem totally oblivious to E. Jean Carroll's similar allegations about Donald Trump. And vice versa.

In truth, these people are entirely motivated by political bias -- while convincing themselves (and hoping to convince others) that they're actually motivated by outrage over the alleged actions of Clinton/Trump. It's easy to say they're being deliberately disingenuous. But I think it's probably more often the case that they're just in denial about the dispositive role their political bias plays in how they view those two situations.

So why don't I think we're hopelessly divided? Because I think, in spite of our biases and passions, we still occupy a lot more common ground than we realize. At least, certainly hope that's the case -- because, if it's not, then you're right to use the word "hopelessly" in this question.

Colts suck.

Outside of that, good post.

 

[BradStevens]

I wish the word passion was struck from the language. Such overused bullshit.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm passionate about language.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Government has no role to play in refereeing anybody’s speech. Period.

I think this is the key point many of you skipped over when you were so quick to interpret Kerry's comment in the worst possible light. He was clearly lamenting the loss of an independent media that (it was long thought) existed that acted as our referee. Government wouldn't need to step in and call balls and strikes on facts, because Walter Cronkite did it for us. Now, there is no Cronkite, and Government can't fill the role because of the 1A. So there is no referee.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think this is the key point many of you skipped over when you were so quick to interpret Kerry's comment in the worst possible light. He was clearly lamenting the loss of an independent media that (it was long thought) existed that acted as our referee. Government wouldn't need to step in and call balls and strikes on facts, because Walter Cronkite did it for us. Now, there is no Cronkite, and Government can't fill the role because of the 1A. So there is no referee.

I didn’t skip it over. I listened to his words carefully. My complaint with what he said was and is that he was lamenting that the 1st Amendment stood in the way of something he clearly would otherwise favor being done.

It would’ve been very easy to tell if he had positive feelings around the 1A preventing regulation of social media in the US. He did not.

And I also think the independent media is a myth. It didn’t exist when Horace Greeley was around. It didn’t exist when William Randolph Hurst was around. It didn’t exist when Edward R. Murrow was around. It didn’t exist when Cronkite was around.

And it doesn’t exist now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I didn’t skip it over. I listened to his words carefully. My complaint with what he said was and is that he was lamenting that the 1st Amendment stood in the way of something he clearly would otherwise favor being done.

It would’ve been very easy to tell if he had positive feelings around the 1A preventing regulation of social media in the US. He did not.

And I also think the independent media is a myth. It didn’t exist when Horace Greeley was around. It didn’t exist when William Randolph Hurst was around. It didn’t exist when Edward R. Murrow was around. It didn’t exist when Cronkite was around.

And it doesn’t exist now.

I agree it never existed, but it was thought to exist, and Kerry was clearly referencing that, and recognizing that puts his comment in a very different light. You say he was lamenting that the 1A stood in the way of government intervention. I'm saying a clearer reading is that he was lamenting that the independent gatekeeper no longer existed, and pointed out as a corollary, that the government was prevented from stepping in to replace them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I agree it never existed, but it was thought to exist, and Kerry was clearly referencing that, and recognizes that puts his comment in a very different light. You say he was lamenting that the 1A stood in the way of government intervention. I'm saying a clearer reading is that he was lamenting that the independent gatekeeper no longer existed, and pointed out as a corollary, that the government was prevented from stepping in to replace them.

So, again I’ll ask: given the totality of his comment, do you think Kerry would be supportive of legislation to regulate social media…if the 1A was not an impediment to it?

Because I feel quite confident that he would.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So, again I’ll ask: given the totality of his comment, do you think Kerry would be supportive of legislation to regulate social media…if the 1A was not an impediment to it?

Because I feel quite confident that he would.

I honestly don't know. A better question would be, Would he support pulling back on 1A protections to make such legislation possible? And on that point, I do not think his comments support an affirmative answer.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm still waiting for the usual suspects to condemn DeSantis.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm still waiting for the usual suspects to condemn DeSantis.

Or at least for CO.H to take the time to explain why it's different.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Full blown Marxism right here.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Full blown Marxism right here.

View embedded media

Law enforcement has no role in countering extremist rhetoric - unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action.

Moreover, social media companies do not have any legal responsibility or obligation to take any action in response to hateful rhetoric or misinformation that appears on their platforms…though they certainly may choose to do so when and if posted comments violate their acceptable use policies.

However, I can’t really draw any connection between Kamala Harris’ misguided admonitions otherwise and Marxism.