ADVERTISEMENT

John Kerry, not a fan 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.
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 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Looks like Ron DeSantis has an issue with the First Amendment as well.


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT