John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment
- Thread starter crazed_hoosier2
- Start date
Wow, there is so much wrong here, I don’t know where to begin.
A few points.
First, the antidote to too much social media and too much disagreeable speech is not to limit speech, but better education. Today our education system, at its best, is teaching students how to jump through hoops, it isn’t about knowledge and thinking.
Second his reference to “disinformation “ necessarily implies that somebody will make decisions about that. Thats scares the bejesus out of me, particularly when you believe like I do is that the government traffics in disinformation now more than ever.
Third, he speaks of good government in terms of consensus and getting more votes. He is supporting cram-down government. Good government is about disagreements resolved with negotiating and compromises. That is not the same as determining consensus and then finding votes.
Finally, recent history tells us that governments that limit free expression are failing governments.
Yeah, one thought that sprung to my mind right out of the gate is who exactly he was referring to when he said that “the dislike of and anguish over social media is growing and growing and growing.”
He obviously doesn’t mean ordinary people. He clearly means the global governing class and others who might be present at a World Economic Forum event. “The Establishment”, if you will.
Because ordinary people clearly don’t have any dislike of social media, as evidenced by the volume of their usage of it. In fact, if ordinary people did dislike it, somebody of Kerry’s disposition on this issue wouldn’t have anything to be concerned about.
But, you’re right, there is a whole lot to unpack in that brief, two-minute statement.
A whole lot of people on here have lamented the ills of social media. Me included.
What part of that video evinces that Kerry is not a fan of the First Amendment? He rightly says 1A is a barrier to stamping out (govt defined) disinformation. As I read him, he’s saying that means his people have to work harder at the “ground game”— which I interpret as getting better at persuading people of their policy goals, etc. I like that. Something Freddie DeBoer preaches as well.
He’s also right that the nature of our govt and elections and politics has been changed by social media and the tech it represents and that we haven’t quite caught up to it yet. How could it not?
What part of that video evinces that Kerry is not a fan of the First Amendment? He rightly says 1A is a barrier to stamping out (govt defined) disinformation. As I read him, he’s saying that means his people have to work harder at the “ground game”— which I interpret as getting better at persuading people of their policy goals, etc. I like that. Something Freddie DeBoer preaches as well.
He’s also right that the nature of our govt and elections and politics has been changed by social media and the tech it represents and that we haven’t quite caught up to it yet. How could it not?
Disagree re cram down govt. You’re reading that into what he said.
Building consensus is not a bad thing. In fact, he’s using that word as a byproduct of compromise. And he’s right.
The ills of social media primarily for kids. For adults I don’t know. It’s a way to stay connected
Cliff Notes version?
"We can't browbeat Twitter anymore".
"We can't browbeat Twitter anymore".
Lots of bad stuff with social media for adults. Not saying the bad outweighs the good.
But Twitter et al were and are used to sow Russian (and other nations who wish us ill) propaganda— we see the results here. They were and will be used to organize riots during the Floyd protests. Their algorithms magnify the echo chambers and crazy voices in ways we never had before. They hastened the end of neutral editors and press, thus helping create a crisis of authority (alternative facts, etc) on nearly every issue. And they do this instantaneously.
All minds are being shaped and affected by it to varying degrees. Pointing out its bad side doesn’t mean you’re against free speech. And that blurb doesn’t support the thread title.
What does he mean when he says “the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact have been eviscerated to a certain degree”?
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think we just have a whole lot more options now.
As far as agendas, every single source has an agenda. That’s always been true, to a certain degree. It’s just much more pronounced now because we have so many more options.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think we just have a whole lot more options now.
As far as agendas, every single source has an agenda. That’s always been true, to a certain degree. It’s just much more pronounced now because we have so many more options.
I get the distinct impression that he’s lamenting the role the 1A plays in this - not that he’s merely taking note of it, let alone applauding the restriction.
This is a man clearly wishing he and others in the governing class had more power to regulate speech.
As far as speech goes, especially political speech, social media is a tremendous blessing….specifically because it bypasses the gatekeepers he refers to as “referees”. We should be thankful those people have been shoved out of the way.
And, yes, I say that fully aware that there is a whole lot of bullshit spread using social media.
Ah, but you see, to somebody like Kerry it clearly depends on what that agenda is. If it’s an agenda to his liking, I gather he’d prefer a world where supporters of that agenda had a monopoly on the ability to promote it…without having to worry about voices of dissent disrupting it.
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.
Countries (most notably Brazil…but also the UK, the EU, and Australia) that don’t have much protection of free speech are using what governmental levers they have to squelch speech they don’t like.
What’s primarily being done here is exerting corporate pressure of various kinds - to create financial pressure to curb speech.
Obviously, Twitter/X is ground zero of all that. But I get the impression that Musk doesn’t care all that much about its finances…thus quite publicly telling Bob Iger to GFY.
and gullible adults who never learned to think for themselves
I think he's generally talking about newspaper editors, mainstream media anchors, etc. Social media has helped eviscerate them, which can be true along with the proposition that they had it coming to them because they became so biased in their roles.
He might think that, and there might be other videos or writings of his that state it more explicitly, but the video you linked doesn't back it up. He speaks for two minutes and mentions 1A once. In that regard, all he says is the 1st Amendment stands as a block to hammering out of existence organizations that pump out disinformation. That's 100% accurate. He gives a solution and says "so what we neeed. . . " Nothing in that solution mentions jettisoning or curbing 1A. Instead, he focuses on "win the ground" and win the "right to govern."
He does say they should win so that they have the "right to change." I don't know what that means. If he means change the 1A, then I would agree, he's saying something worrisome. But there's no proof in this clip that that is what he is referring to.
Re neutral editors of facts (what he said, not editors/referrees of opinion), we can and do have neutral arbiters of many facts in life--if we didn't, it would be power politics all the way down, a very postmodern, CRT vision of the world. I don't understand conservatives--or liberals--who want to give that game away. Facts exist, and people have the ability to muzzle their inborn or experiential biases about things and do so to an important extent about all manner of facts. If not, we couldn't even do science, for example.
Even on the more contentious issues, there are people who edit or referee things who don't have skin in the game or do a great job of preventing any political bias from creeping in (compare news sections of the WSJ to NYT or subscribe to the many services that now tout objective news). The banal objection that people aren't perfect, I find to be irrelevant and utopian.
All that said, I agree that my preferred society would not allow a centralized entity to determine who is and is not a good or neutral or unbiased editor/arbiter. And the First Amendment should be fought for, not abandoned to progressives who now find it inconvenient (and yes, they do exist).
What's hilarious is that all the misinformation was being put out by the Dems.
Masks work. Vaccines work. Trump colluded with Russia. Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation. We could go on forever.
The more difficult issues are those to come with advancing technology. You're right about a lot of what people have complained about to date with politics, covid, etc. But how deep fakes can or will be regulated, for example, is going to be a huge fight in years to come.
When someone creates a lifelike "hidden video" of the 2028 Republican presidential nominee having sex with little kids on Epstein Island and it spreads across Twitter like wildfire and influences an election, what should we do about that? What if we get to the point where such a video cannot be falsified, or it just takes too long to do so, resulting in elections being won or lost (or worse) based on such disinformation?
Kerry is right that our democracies are not ready for this or the speed with which such disinformation can be spread.
I think he is pretty clear that governance means having the votes. Voting majorities achieved in any way possible is the overriding principle. That is what cram down means to me.
“Getting to yes” was a fashionable dispute resolution technique that came up in the 90’s.. It has a time and place but its application is limited. A real world example. The commissioners I represented were trying to craft a reg about the number of horses that could be kept in a large-lot subdivision. Some people were adamant about only one, others wanted more. Both sides had their strong points. The commissioners tried their damnest to get both sides to yes. Wasn’t gonna happen. At lunch one day with one of them the subject came up. I told him his job was to make a decision. Not engage in futile mediation. Politicians don’t like to make decisions. I see “consensus “ as avoiding decision-making.
I’m not so sure social media has changed politics as much as it has torn the scab off of what is wrong with politics. I think the politicians who gripe about social media think it’s the government’s job to control the messaging instead of the other way around.
Well, I totally disagree with you about neutrality of people. People are inherently biased in all kinds of ways. And that applies to editors, writers, and everybody else. And this isn’t something we can just turn on and off.
Saying that is not in any way denying that there are such things as facts and falsehoods. However, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And if you want me to list examples of where professional news editors, ostensibly neutral, have completely dropped the ball in ways that can pretty much only be explained by bias, it’s not a difficult thing to do.
Social media is a remedy to all of this. As much as it’s used to disseminate bullshit, it’s also used to respond to and correct bullshit…such that I don’t find it difficult to use it in a way to arrive at some approximating the full and accurate truth.
You used it to that effect yesterday with the ICE data. People defending Biden had responded to it - on social media! And they shed more light on what we were seeing, did they not?
And, again, as for Kerry, I stand entirely behind my characterization of his comments. And here’s the reason: he was complaining about it. The entire statement was a complaint about “unregulated social media” (the interviewer fairly characterized his comments with those exact words). Kerry going on to say “I guess we just have to do better convincing people” doesn’t change the fact he was complaining about the inability of the American government to “curb those entities”.
Why else even mention “curbing” entities that facilitate the exchange of information and ideas, if not to indicate some level of desire to wish to do so?
Let me just ask point blank: if the 1st amendment didn’t exist, do you think John Kerry would favor governmental action to regulate speech on social media?
I do. There are state actors already doing this in numerous places that don’t have the 1st Amendment.
Last edited:
As consensus is concerned, I might suggest that some of our biggest disconnects right now aren’t so much between different sides of the aisle as they are between us governed and those who govern us.
Consider border security. There aren’t too many ordinary people who don’t think that it should be very difficult for somebody to unlawfully enter our country. Even people who are generally friendly to immigration tend to support a secure border.
But look at the bipartisan bill that was crafted in the Senate and called a “border security bill.” It literally created a tolerance threshold of encounters between ports of entry before it would institute measures to close the border down. And that tolerance went up to an annual number of 1.8 million.
See the disconnect?
Do you think supporters of that bill were glad that social media made it possible for everybody to know the truth about their legislation?
You truly are dumb as a post.
Does your Lord T know you don’t believe in his COVID vaccine? Could it be that he also thinks you’re dumb as a post? Next time he asks you to lick his shoes to get a good shine on them, inform him that you think his vaccine is bull shit.
I think John Kerry understands the importance of the First Amendment.
The entire conversation begs the questions, what the f#ck are they talking about? The United States has the strongest economy, military, and capital markets in the world. We also have a smaller government and lean more rightward than almost all of Europe. Europe is a shithole in comparison to the United States and have really struggled the past 15 years. Their Democracies and countries are crumbling in comparison to the U.S. Why would we want to continue shifting leftward and growing the government? Social Media is a just a convenient excuse to pass blame for their own failures. He's a dumb socialist egg fart that just wants more power. F#ck him.
But he clearly wishes it wasn’t standing in the way of him and others like him to “curb those entities” which enable all of us to freely speak our mind in ways that millions of people can hear.
Again, given the totality of his comments in that video, do you think Kerry would favor legal restrictions on speech propagated through social media…if it weren’t for the 1st Amendment prohibiting such restrictions?
Because I do. In fact, I think it was the entire thrust of what he said.
Why do you think private sector entities have exerted financial pressure on social media to be more strongly censored (or, as they like to say, moderated)?
We should all use the very same vehicles for propagation of speech to make it clear that the video is a forgery. That’s what.
It’s been long said, and well said, that the answer to bad speech is not suppression of speech…it’s by engaging it, countering it, and overwhelming it with good speech.
People can discuss tradeoffs of a particular rule or policy, even emphasizing the cost of that tradeoff, without wanting to alter the tradeoff, rule, or policy. Kerry is smart enough to realize that and I think that's what we hear in that video. He didn't say we should stack the court with judges who would alter the rule, for example, or say we need to repeal the First Amendment.
By the way, @snarlcakes , Kerry isn't a socialist--he could be the poster child for crony capitalism.
You're not accepting the hypothetical in its entirety and so missing the point.
Kerry defends liberties, says Americans have "right to be stupid"
He gets points for being self-aware.
What part of the hypothetical am I disregarding?
Add whatever you want to it. The answer will be the same - and that’s because it’s rooted in a principle.
I didn’t say he said we should repeal the 1st amendment. I said he was complaining about what it means for the topic of discussion.
Now, can you humor me and answer the question I’ve asked you…twice?
Over 100 former US security agents employed to supervise censorship and craft the narrative through banning, shadow-banning and other dirty tricks is somewhat more than browbeating..
Good thread.
I think he is correct re the challenges so much info presents in governance
I think he wants greater regulation which will effectively give rise to censorship of views the governing party doesn’t like. Dems used twitter as a vehicle to control info with both Covid and recent elections. No doubt pubs would do the same.
The advent of tech has rendered even the spirit of the old fairness doctrine obsolete. He’s wrong. We do not need regulations- we need more voices, more information to allow for equity in the dissemination of info and views, and a better educated more discerning electorate.
I think he is correct re the challenges so much info presents in governance
I think he wants greater regulation which will effectively give rise to censorship of views the governing party doesn’t like. Dems used twitter as a vehicle to control info with both Covid and recent elections. No doubt pubs would do the same.
The advent of tech has rendered even the spirit of the old fairness doctrine obsolete. He’s wrong. We do not need regulations- we need more voices, more information to allow for equity in the dissemination of info and views, and a better educated more discerning electorate.
Last edited:
Craze, your observation that "there are no neutral people" struck a chord with me.
I suspect a good many of us would see comments made by John Kerry and immediately not agree with him because he is a Democrat politician.
In my opinion when we see ourselves as a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, Christian or otherwise, and the list goes on... the odds we are open to a variety of ideas diminishes greatly. No group has a monopoly on good ideas.
Even worse, the language we use to describe others seems to know no bounds. Not only do we disagree but we call the other guys stupid, liars, etc. In this respect the lack of civil discourse found in social media and the mainstream media such as with so-called comedians is deplorable.
By the way, a legislative decision involving consensus, as compared to an executive order, isn't a lack of decision making. It is decision based upon a compromise which includes the contribution from enough members of those voting to reach a majority. Over time through trial-and-error legislation can be updated to meet the challenges of change.
It’s so obvious you get your information solely from internet sources.
These tradeoffs have always existed since the founding of our nation and being aware of them is crucial to making the most of our freedoms. I'm always amazed that people somehow believe that there was ever a time when these tensions between misinformation and fighting it didn't exist. Kerry seems to be pretty obviously commenting on that reality.
My point is it's a false narrative. An alternative reality. The discussion should be around why is Europe falling apart, unable to defend themselves, and the problems with centralization and ever expanding governments. However, that would mean less power for the WEF and people like Kerry, which goes against their objectives.
Once again, how much capital do governments get control before I can call them socialists? It's currently around 40% in the U.S. and Kerry would gladly vote for a much larger government. He's a socialist.
He means prior to the internet we had better control of the referees, but social media has made that more difficult. The issue Kerry types have is the shift from centralization (20th century tech) to decentralization (21st century tech). Covid was peak centralization and the turning point in my opinion.
I think we have a number of interpretations going on here, and mine is that Kerry is lamenting 1A as an impediment to social media style speech, which is where misinformation grows much wider that it has in the past. I think SM needs regulation. I’m all for the inherent free speech, but the *algorithm* is the damaging mechanism here, and needs regulating. The algorithm is not just silo-ing people, it’s enflaming us all. And for this reason I do hate social media. It’s picking, and sometimes generating false narratives with the intent to anger and inflame….aka “engage”. This can’t be good for society.
Ps. This is one big reason I like the WC. It seems to be operating outside the manipulations of the algorithm.
Similar threads
