I agree with your major thrust here.
But one thing I’d say about being unaffiliated for this election: it’s pretty liberating to feel free to treat both candidates with the contempt they each deserve.
John Kerry, not a fan of the 1st Amendment
- Thread starter crazed_hoosier2
- Start date
But one thing I’d say about being unaffiliated for this election: it’s pretty liberating to feel free to treat both candidates with the contempt they each deserve.
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.
And my premise presupposes fair access and control. What if a radical progressive like soros bought up social media outlets. Someone with an agenda. We’re beginning to see that with musk who is drifting farther and farther right. What if he becomes a trillionaire and buys up fb and instagram. Ostensibly someone can create a new platform but it’s largely bs bc of the head start others have and people who have curated followers aren’t starting over
I guess antitrust kicks in but who knows the outcome etc
The no reg invites issues too if you flesh out hypos
I don’t see this as regulating speech. it’s regulating the algorithm that feeds you what you get, and much of it is fake anyway. No individual speech is being being curbed. The misinformation being pushed, plus the skewed POVs feels like incitement. I know it doesn’t fit that criteria, but we are heading down a dangerous road otherwise.
It is tho. The algorithm filters content. If the gov intercedes impermissible. Content is the germane factor
Let me put it this way: what if the law didn’t regulate what newspapers published...but did regulate where stories appeared: front page, above the fold, hidden in the middle, etc.
Kosher with freedom of the press? No. And it’s not even close.
I see your point, as well as McMurtry’s. In a way, i agree with you both.
But to use your newspaper analogy, this fictional newspaper is currently taking a deranged story written by a deranged citizen (or more likely, written by a Russian bot) and placing it on the front page above the fold.
As it stands now, the algorithms takes your current POV and manipulatively pushes you info and stories that are beyond your current POV, perfectly tuned to engage you further. I know of no newspapers like that. It’s no longer news. It’s fiction beyond the likes of the National enquirer.
Others may disagree with you on that characterization. And that’s important here. Our government simply does not and cannot serve as the arbiter of truth.
But let’s even look at this by stipulating your point. Remember the Weekly World News? As insane as that publication was, it was entirely protected by the 1A.
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..
Not a response to OP, but just to the topic. Heard an interesting discussion on NPR this morning about how our modern absolutist understanding of free speech has really only been around since sometime in the 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, if government wanted to punish speech, the courts were generally fine with it. The scholar interviewed basically credited Oliver Wendell Holmes with single-handedly inventing modern First Amendment jurisprudence.
Really? I thought it was just about balancing the budget. This whole time, you guys have secretly been working toward overthrowing the Constitution?
Great example.
I have no idea if Google is deliberately monkeying with their search results. They may well be.
But the government plays — and should play — absolutely no role in that. The fact Trump thinks they should really ought to give anybody else with a similar notion some serious pause.
Good post. The guy is a 50 year grifter. Lots of buzz words/phrases here: "the referees we used to have"; "people self-select"; "how you curb these entities"; "1st amendment stands as a major block to the ability to hammer it out of existence"; "will we break the fever". I wouldn't trust him as a dog catcher.
One thing I’d add to this is that a lot of people would hear Trump say things like this and (rightly) bristle about it. It’s clearly an authoritarian appeal he’s making.
But why should “normal” politicians like John Kerry get a pass? I feel very confident that the sentiments he expressed are very popular among the Davos set.
The sentiment is hot garbage whoever is saying it.
Same goes (for different reasons) with ditching the filibuster. Trump was advocating this years before most Democrats took up thr mantle. And now their presidential candidate is advocating for it.
That is also a bad idea - even if it’s not a Constitutional issue.
The thing is a whole bunch of right wing referees posted this story yesterday and they all said that it was evidence Kerry doesn't like the 1A, so you are witnessing those referees tell people what is fact in real time by seeing the video described as such here.
Kerry is clearly lamenting that the 1A stands in the way of “curbing” social media platforms from government influence.
Don’t take it up with me. That is the only reasonable way to interpret his comments.
I’ll ask again (Brad hasn’t answered…maybe he’s missed it): hearing his comments, if the 1A wasn’t an issue, do you think Kerry would support legislation to regulate content on social media?
I don’t think there’s any question about it. Why else would he lodge these complaints?
No, Brad already offered another reasonable way to interpret them. Your interpretation is simply the one you were told to think when you came across this story yesterday. You should be putting more effort into thinking about how easily you were manipulated.
Brad’s explanation was way too generous.
Kerry was complaining about the role of social media….and then said the 1A prevents folks like him from doing anything about it.
And that clearly implies that he’d favor regulating it if he could…as numerous other countries are already doing.
I’d gladly give him the benefit of the doubt. But he simply doesn’t deserve it here.
Sorry, Goat. No sale.
The most important question is why is John Kerry even a thing? The guy is a very mediocre public servant and out of his depth in most things.
When was it easy to govern? Hasn't the American Constitution on purpose made it hard to govern?
The algorithm is reflected here through the posts of those who are owned by it.
I can't speak for any other countries, but that argument would never survive the US courts.
Saying that platforms "hide behind free speech" wrt to their algorithms indicates that he doesn't believe free speech extends to this -- that while government can't regulate what people say on these platforms, it can regulate what things do or don't get promoted or demoted by the algorithms. And I think he's just simply wrong about that...even if the algorithms are designed to evoke specific emotions or responses.
….and what do we do when it turns out “these people” are actually just bots? Are we protecting bot speech?
Bots are software tools, deployed and controlled by people. If you regulate a bot, you regulate its master.
Well, I’m not cool with this “master” disseminating an avalanche of inciting fake opinions into an arena that appears to be made up of real individuals, thereby thumbing the scale. Be it George Soros or Leon Musk, or Putin, or the US Govt. The only real solution currently available is to shut off and delete the app, which is next for me. And maybe that is the only answer.
Of course you can do that. It’s not really a problem for me - in that I don’t find it hard to discern between what is factual and what is not. But it’s everybody’s prerogative to use social media or not.
I’m just saying that the state has no role here. It can’t - which is why John Kerry was lamenting the 1A: he wishes government could regulate speech so that we could only exchange the information they’ve approved for exchange.
But this ain’t China.
Well, again, this isn’t simple speech. Intermingled with all this real person speech are computer bots generating speech that looks and sounds like speech…..which, by the way, you say you have a full grasp of that which is real and that which is fake. Neither you nor I have that innate knowledge.
In a very short time, these LLMs will be indistinguishable from real language. To be sure, we have a rough road ahead of us.
I didn’t say it was innate knowledge. It has to do with applying skepticism and simply looking elsewhere for corroboration. I’ve sniffed out bogus info plenty of times.
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.
A current example that a friend in Indiana just told me about:
www.21alivenews.com
Is the law requiring the disclaimer a violation of the 1st Amendment?
Braun campaign releases ad with digitally altered images of McCormick
A new campaign ad for Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Braun contains a digitally altered image of Indiana Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick that implies she is anti-gas stove.
Is the law requiring the disclaimer a violation of the 1st Amendment?
I have to imagine that everybody involved with the drafting and passage of this law knew that it wouldn't survive 10 minutes in the courts.
A current example that a friend in Indiana just told me about:
Braun campaign releases ad with digitally altered images of McCormick
A new campaign ad for Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Braun contains a digitally altered image of Indiana Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick that implies she is anti-gas stove.
Is the law requiring the disclaimer a violation of the 1st Amendment?
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.
Yeah -- I've had several issues with Gov. DeSantis where I think he's either crossed lines or come awfully close to doing it. The first one was when he sought to prevent cruise lines from requiring Vaccine Passports to board their ships. While I wasn't a fan of that (I got vaccinated, but never had any issues with those who chose not to), those ships are private property. And it should obviously be entirely within their purview to require proof of vaccination to board one -- especially after the horror show several of them went through when Covid first hit.
More recently he's signed legislation banning the sale of lab-grown meat. I will never knowingly eat that stuff. The very thought is repulsive to me. But what business is it of the government's to say people can't sell and buy it? None, at all.
And he's also done a few things that encroach on the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter of it.
Similar threads
