Free Speech

[TexRex]

GETTR, the social network that's touted by its CEO as "The Marketplace of Ideas" and is said to be a free speech alternative to oppressive Twitter, has indefinitely suspended white nationalist, Holocaust denier and top "Groyper" Nick Fuentes. Of course because Gettr is a private actor, it can deny access to its service to anyone and for any reason without actually violating their right to free speech. Fuentes hasn't actually been silenced, mind, and I gather he even announced and remarked on this action against him on alternative social network Telegram.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

No matter how aggrieved you are and no matter how completely you gut the statute, no change to Section 230 results in prohibition of "political censorship" by social media. The statute defines liability. That's all it does, even through changes relevant to FOSTA-SESTA.

The thing that enables "political censorship" by social media--indeed that constrains state actors like the breathtakingly stupid mother****er Dan Crenshaw seeking to prohibit it through legislative measures--is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yes, I realize this isn't much of a concern for Dan Crenshaw.

 

[TexRex]

Three University of Florida professors were barred from testifying against the state in a voting rights lawsuit, and so they filed a suit of their on First Amendment grounds because it's a public university.

While perhaps not facially unconstitutional, the prohibition definitely runs afoul of unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Contractors with the state don't actually lose constitutional protections and prior restraint as a condition of employment or retaliation for protected speech is likely to itself be unconstitutional.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ashers 'gay cake' case: European court rules case inadmissible

A bakery firm was taken to court for refusing to make a cake with a "Support Gay Marriage" slogan.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Swagger897]

Ashers 'gay cake' case: European court rules case inadmissible

A bakery firm was taken to court for refusing to make a cake with a "Support Gay Marriage" slogan.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not surprised a bakery wouldn’t want to take part in supporting something not legal at the time.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This is a censorship rather than free speech issue but I'm not sure it's worth creating a new thread for:

Aid to the Church in Need | UK: Facebook acted as arbitrary censor, silencing vulnerable women – says charity head

Facebook has suddenly lifted severe restrictions imposed on a leading Catholic charity – but has offered no explanation for its actions which for nearly two months have severely hampered the organisation’s outreach.

acnuk.org

 

[Scaff]

Not surprised a bakery wouldn’t want to take part in supporting something not legal at the time.

I'm pretty much 100% sure they wouldn't support it, legal or not.

 

[TexRex]

I mean...at least he's confident?

He's wrong, of course.

Provocation of violence has been addressed at great length in constitutional jurisprudence and the current standard for said speech being unprotected includes imminence and intent. Speech directed at producing imminent lawless action with the likelihood that it will occur. Not one or the other. Both. Mere falsehoods are not direction--they're falsehoods--and they're not likely to produce imminent violence or lawlessness.

False speech is also protected speech. Unprotected speech may involve false speech (defamation and perjury), but it's not because of the false speech itself that the speech is unprotected. Standards must also be met for false speech in these circumstances for the speech to be unprotected.

The government is not fit to be the arbiter of truth.

Not surprised a bakery wouldn’t want to take part in supporting something not legal at the time.

When advocacy for legalization of a thing is not reasonably expected to be punishable by the state, such as the state permitting and recognizing under law unions between same sex couples, it's very likely that the choice to not advocate is one made by an entity based on viewpoint rather than the legality of the thing.

Laws should protect rights without violating rights. No rights are protected by prohibition of same sex unions and refusal of the state to recognize them under law, while the right to equal treatment under law is absolutely violated.

This was a win for free speech. A private actor should not be able to utilize the courts to violate the rights of another private actor, in this case the right to not advocate for the legalization of a thing, even by proxy as creating the requested cake would have done.

Compelled speech isn't free speech.

What concerns me is that free speech may have only won out here due to a technicality. It's not clear that the lower court's ruling would have been upheld absent the technicality.

This is a censorship rather than free speech issue but I'm not sure it's worth creating a new thread for:

Aid to the Church in Need | UK: Facebook acted as arbitrary censor, silencing vulnerable women – says charity head

Facebook has suddenly lifted severe restrictions imposed on a leading Catholic charity – but has offered no explanation for its actions which for nearly two months have severely hampered the organisation’s outreach.

acnuk.org

"Censorship" here is a bit of a misnomer.

A private actor refusing to avail its services to another actor, private or state, is exercising its freedom of choice and free association. When speech is involved, such as the carriage of speech or speech by proxy, it's also exercising free speech.

Facebook refusing to carry the speech of a leading Catholic charity is no more censorship than a bakery refusing to make a cake with a "Support Gay Marriage" slogan.

It's not all sour grapes, though, because people get to think Facebook refusing to carry the speech of a leading Catholic charity is wrong. People may appeal to Facebook itself to right what they believe to be a wrong, or they may appeal to others, including news and media organizations, in order to compel Facebook to right what they believe to be a wrong.

 

[Scaff]

Compelled speech isn't free speech.

What concerns me is that free speech may have only won out here due to a technicality. It's not clear that the lower court's ruling would have been upheld absent the technicality.

That would be because in the UK and NI we don't have a right to free speech, we have a right to freedom of expression, which the government can and does mess with a lot.

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The Right to Freedom of Expression

www.bihr.org.uk

NI is worse than the rest of the UK as it also still has blasphemy laws

Protect freedom of expression

We promote free speech as a positive value.

www.secularism.org.uk

And as whole the current administration has done and is doing all it can to further erode freedom of expression.

UK slips down freedom of expression ranking for attempts to erode public service media

UK slips down freedom of expression ranking for attempts to erode public service media. From PR Week

www.prweek.com

 

[TexRex]

That would be because in the UK and NI we don't have a right to free speech, we have a right to freedom of expression, which the government can and does mess with a lot.

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The Right to Freedom of Expression

www.bihr.org.uk

NI is worse than the rest of the UK as it also still has blasphemy laws

Protect freedom of expression

We promote free speech as a positive value.

www.secularism.org.uk

And as whole the current administration has done and is doing all it can to further erode freedom of expression.

UK slips down freedom of expression ranking for attempts to erode public service media

UK slips down freedom of expression ranking for attempts to erode public service media. From PR Week

www.prweek.com

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Scaff]

USA! USA! USA!

Very true, but my wife's type 1 diabetes doesn't cost us a penny, ever.

 

[Danoff]

Very true, but my wife's type 1 diabetes doesn't cost us a penny, ever.

Have you tried just not knowing about the diabetes?

Ben Carson Echoes Trump, Says Covid Test Shortage Isn't 'Such a Bad Thing' Because It Means Fewer 'Positive People'

Dr. Ben Carson said Covid-19 testing shortages might not be "a bad thing" because the more who are testing, the more who will test positive.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Scaff]

Have you tried just not knowing about the diabetes?

Ben Carson Echoes Trump, Says Covid Test Shortage Isn't 'Such a Bad Thing' Because It Means Fewer 'Positive People'

Dr. Ben Carson said Covid-19 testing shortages might not be "a bad thing" because the more who are testing, the more who will test positive.

www.rollingstone.com

He really does need to be struck off as a doctor!

 

[TexRex]

Very true, but my wife's type 1 diabetes doesn't cost us a penny, ever.

I'll take robust speech protections over medical care that I don't pay for directly out of pocket, 100 times out of 100.

He really does need to be struck off as a doctor!

State licensing boards can't revoke the right to practice (or even just retain the title of doctor) over disfavored speech.

 

[Danoff]

State licensing boards can't revoke the right to practice (or even just retain the title of doctor) over disfavored speech.

Maybe over irresponsible medical advice though...

 

[Scaff]

I'll take robust speech protections over medical care that I don't pay for directly out of pocket, 100 times out of 100.

I'd take both...

State licensing boards can't revoke the right to practice (or even just retain the title of doctor) over disfavored speech.

Tree'd by @Danoff

 

[HenrySwanson]

I mean...at least he's confident?

He's wrong, of course.

Provocation of violence has been addressed at great length in constitutional jurisprudence and the current standard for said speech being unprotected includes imminence and intent. Speech directed at producing imminent lawless action with the likelihood that it will occur. Not one or the other. Both. Mere falsehoods are not direction--they're falsehoods--and they're not likely to produce imminent violence or lawlessness.

False speech is also protected speech. Unprotected speech may involve false speech (defamation and perjury), but it's not because of the false speech itself that the speech is unprotected. Standards must also be met for false speech in these circumstances for the speech to be unprotected.

The government is not fit to be the arbiter of truth.

When advocacy for legalization of a thing is not reasonably expected to be punishable by the state, such as the state permitting and recognizing under law unions between same sex couples, it's very likely that the choice to not advocate is one made by an entity based on viewpoint rather than the legality of the thing.

Laws should protect rights without violating rights. No rights are protected by prohibition of same sex unions and refusal of the state to recognize them under law, while the right to equal treatment under law is absolutely violated.

This was a win for free speech. A private actor should not be able to utilize the courts to violate the rights of another private actor, in this case the right to not advocate for the legalization of a thing, even by proxy as creating the requested cake would have done.

Compelled speech isn't free speech.

What concerns me is that free speech may have only won out here due to a technicality. It's not clear that the lower court's ruling would have been upheld absent the technicality.

"Censorship" here is a bit of a misnomer.

A private actor refusing to avail its services to another actor, private or state, is exercising its freedom of choice and free association. When speech is involved, such as the carriage of speech or speech by proxy, it's also exercising free speech.

Facebook refusing to carry the speech of a leading Catholic charity is no more censorship than a bakery refusing to make a cake with a "Support Gay Marriage" slogan.

It's not all sour grapes, though, because people get to think Facebook refusing to carry the speech of a leading Catholic charity is wrong. People may appeal to Facebook itself to right what they believe to be a wrong, or they may appeal to others, including news and media organizations, in order to compel Facebook to right what they believe to be a wrong.

Yeah, I thought they were only complaining about the policies of Facebook but missed that they thought Facebook shouldn't have a right to do that:

“Regrettably, this whole episode shows that Facebook thinks it has the right to censure without explanation and without any chance of redress – it is muzzling debates that are literally matters of life and death.”

It's a sucky situation, and it definitely isn't limited to Facebook, but the alternative (forcing companies by law to be more open) isn't the road we should be heading down (although as shown by myself and @Scaff it is potentially where the UK is headed)

 

[Scaff]

It's a sucky situation, and it definitely isn't limited to Facebook, but the alternative (forcing companies by law to be more open) isn't the road we should be heading down (although as shown by myself and @Scaff it is potentially where the UK is headed)

I don't think the issue in the UK is so much government forcing social media to be allow x, y, or z, but far more around the government having a desire to control and supress what it sees as speech that is critical of itself and its ideology.

Johnson has been quite clear that he would love a 'war on woke' to succeed, while wanting to supress what he sees as anything critical of government policy, and equally concerning is whenever the judiciary exercise rightful independence it brings it to the fore. From prorogation of parliament to the latest verdict on the Coulston Four, to attempts to restrict the right to protest demonstrate that.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Maybe over irresponsible medical advice though...

Definitely

 

[TexRex]

Maybe over irresponsible medical advice though...

Breathtakingly stupid as it is, the example above can't reasonably be said to be injurious. "Awful but lawful" seems fitting here even if "awful" is just awfully stupid.

To your point, though, a doctor advising a patient to do something likely to be harmful may justify medical license revocation or even criminal prosecution.

I'd take both...

That would be because in the UK and NI we don't have a right to free speech, we have a right to freedom of expression, which the government can and does mess with a lot.

It sure sounds like you don't have both. It sounds like you have one.

As an aside, I'm not sure I understand how expression is distinguished from speech. Speech is but one form of expression and the terms are used fairly interchangeably here when it comes to protections. While not outright speech, acts like (but not limited to) kneeling during the anthem, burning the flag and wearing a jacket with "**** the Draft" on it are protected.

 

[Danoff]

Breathtakingly stupid as it is, the example above can't reasonably be said to be injurious. "Awful but lawful" seems fitting here even if "awful" is just awfully stupid.

I see some room for injury.

 

[TexRex]

I see some room for injury.

And a vast ocean of agency to cross to get to it.

 

[Danoff]

And a vast ocean of agency to cross to get to it.

I don't agree.

I think if his statements were at a cocktail party that might be a different story. But the context with which his remarks are made is official, instructive, and meant to be carefully understood and acted upon. The message is clear, testing is bad, and it's a public message meant for the public to follow.

 

[Scaff]

It sure sounds like you don't have both. It sounds like you have one.

Don't get me wrong, not claiming we have both, quite the opposite.

 

[TexRex]

I don't agree.

I think if his statements were at a cocktail party that might be a different story. But the context with which his remarks are made is official, instructive, and meant to be carefully understood and acted upon. The message is clear, testing is bad, and it's a public message meant for the public to follow.

I'm not seeing it. Going on Fox News and spouting off idiotic testing narratives to some dumb broad and the idiotic base seems far from official and there seems to be a fair bit of reading in that needs to be done to interpret what he's saying as instructive.

It's aggressively ****ing stupid but I don't think it should be unprotected.

 

[Danoff]

It's aggressively ****ing stupid but I don't think it should be unprotected.

Constitutionally.. yes... 100%. But should he practice medicine? Each state has some say in that today.

 

[TexRex]

Constitutionally.. yes... 100%. But should he practice medicine? Each state has some say in that today.

Can you cite any specific examples in which such action might withstand constitutional scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

 

[Danoff]

Can you cite any specific examples in which such action might withstand constitutional scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

I'm confused about why you think a medical licensing board revoking a medical license based on medical misinformation would have anything to do with 1A.

 

[TexRex]

I'm confused about why you think a medical licensing board revoking a medical license based on medical misinformation would have anything to do with 1A.

Are medical boards not governmental regulatory bodies?

My understanding is that they are and that citizens are protected against state actors (both "State," as in the federal government, but also the individual states through incorporation doctrine and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) imposing penalties, such as revocation of a medical license, for protected speech.