Free Speech

Don't Be Fooled By Our Media Wars: Everybody Hates Free Speech

Treating free expression like an instrument of power means that the fight is more about who gets punished most when politicians write new restrictions.

|

As America's acid bath of a presidential campaign boils to a merciful close, the political clamor is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from a shouting match about, over, and against the media. Twitter is still blocking the New York Post's main account a week after the tabloid's controversial article on Hunter Biden's alleged corruption. President Donald Trump has been waging preemptive war against upcoming debate moderator Kristin Welker and 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. Sacha Baron Cohen, in a Borat sequel that ends with a plea for viewers to vote, just tried to honey-pot Rudy Giuliani.

The partisan lopsidedness to this debate, between attempted authoritarian and "enemy of the people," can give off the misleading impression that the divide over free speech and its applications is a clean philosophical schism, with conservatives on one side, progressives and most journalists on the other. In fact it is not.

The fight over media is more a fight over power, and who gets to wield it, than a fight over principle, and how it should be applied. Trump and Joe Biden both want to roll back the speech protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; the difference is that the president would do it in the name of protecting conservatives and the former vice president would do it in the name of restricting conservative misinformation. Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) agree that Facebook and Twitter are guilty of "election interference"; it just depends on which election. Google faces antitrust enthusiasm from House Democrats and Bill Barr's Justice Department alike. (This morning, on Fox Business Network's Mornings with Maria, Donald Trump, Jr., asserted that this election would be a referendum on the First Amendment, because only his father could be trusted with following through on his promise to break up Big Tech, because Democrats who talk a big game are actually in bed with their censorious Silicon Valley overlords.)

The more politics (and its worst form, war) subsumes life, the more free speech is treated as a means to an end rather than as a magnificent if always-threatened achievement of the Enlightenment. It is no accident that the bipartisan clampdown on speech in the governmental realm is coinciding in the intellectual realm with a noisy right-left rethink of the Enlightenment itself.

The New Nationalists and their Silicon Valley edgelord brethren call out the Enlightenment by name, decry individual autonomy, and dream out loud of a new "illiberalism" to supplant the false god of classical liberalism. The identitarian or intersectional left, with its increasing influence on journalism and the managerial class, attacks as untenably hypocritical America's foundational Enlightenment documents, spends an inordinate amount of time debating (based more on instrumental power than philosophical principle) who does and does not deserve a "platform," and treats individual rights like a chef treats eggs.

Just in the past week we've seen a New York Times Magazine cover story on "The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation"; a reported Black Lives Matter activist suckerpunching and knocking out the front teeth of a Proud Boy in San Francisco; and most gruesomely, a French teacher getting beheaded after showing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson on free speech. "The victim was immediately depicted as a martyr to freedom of expression," wrote The New York Times, a newspaper too cowed to publish even a file photo of a statue that stood a half-century without incident atop a Manhattan courthouse.

Treating free speech as just one of many balancing tests in this great political struggle called life means checking first the team status of the controversial speaker, which is how you get such ugliness as 145 American intellectuals protesting the fact that murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists received a posthumous free speech award. It threatens to dismantle decades of media deregulation over the schoolyard query of, "Yeah, but did we win?"

For now, the Supreme Court acts as a robustly speech-defending bulwark against the restrictionist excesses of our politics and culture. But as long as we keep treating expression as yet another function of power, we're going to be trapped in an absurd, narrowing dichotomy: Speech from the bad guys will increasingly be treated like violence, while violence from the good guys will be increasingly treated like speech. It's long since past time to uncouple those unequal concepts.

NEXT: Joe Biden's Economic Policies Would Cost the Economy 4.9 Million Jobs by 2030, According to a New Study

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, does this mean Reason is ready to hold another “Everybody Draw Mohammed” contest?

    Or do you guys not have the stomach for that kind of thing anymore?

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    1. Joe Biden is among the most not-a-crook politicians in America, and Trump is… a fucking crook on a global scale! What the fuck is wrong with you?

      Normal people see their party nominate the most incompetent and corrupt human on earth for president and decide it’s time for a new party.

      1. Who took over Tony’s sock? Tony was evil and dishonest, but not quite as illiterate and clownish as of late.

        1. A question that gets asked once every 5 months for over a decade.

          I guess Tony XXVIII has just been retired. Long live Tony XXIX!

          1. The Tony is dead. Long live The Tony!

            1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time. Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page..HERE……… Home Profit System

            2. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. ACV Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…….. Visit Here

        2. Tony is a Russian bot.

      2. AYFKM?! Joe Biden is corrupt AF. Emails don’t lie. Neither do business partners with thousands of text messages, emails and documents.

        This guy used his crackhead kid as his bagman. What a guy.

        1. “Emails don’t lie.” Thus spake Aristotle.

          The emails are fake. There is plenty of ridiculously obvious evidence they are fake and the FBI said so.

          1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action OLD 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

            what I do………Click here

          2. The department of intelligence has said there is no evidence of tampering. They are the ones giving the FBI intelligence. So unless the FBI has it’s own agenda, they spoke too early or they are trying to protect Biden.

        2. “. . . The emails were sent when Biden was no longer Vice President and Trump was in office. . .”

          So much for the Conservative lie that Biden broke the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 208 that I’ve seen Conservatives claim.

          It’s called “private business”- Welcome to Capitalism, Biotch.

          I like presidential candidates who liberate our money back from China, and not losers who let our money get captured by China.

          I like presidential candidates who contribute to America, not presidential candidates who some years are part of “the 47 percent who pay no “federal income tax” who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”

      3. Tony, how is it possible to be this stupid and yet survive to adulthood? I can only surmise that this is why you are a stupid, dishonest leftist; your very existence depends on it.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Anl Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here

      4. “…..among the most not-a-crook……”

        Dude. Seriously? Hate on trump all you want, but damn, man. Even if you’re saying they’re all really bad, there’s no way that this swamp creature falls into the relatively-not-so-bad category.

        Joe “I wrote the damn crime bill” Biden is a good guy? Haha. Wow.

        1. Writing a crime bill is not corruption.

          1. No, but pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who is investigating the company, Burisma, which your son Biden is on the board of directors, with no experience in oil & gas, is corruption. Why wasn’t he impeached for that? Oh, yes, he’s a Democrat.

      5. Thank God this mindless bot will cease to exist after the election. Nice knowing you comrade.

      6. OMG, Tony has just admitted that Democrats are abnormal!

        -jcr

    2. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

    3. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from ask this without having online working skills. This is what I do….Visit Here

    4. And on today’s episode of #BothSides …

      Reason’s risible #BothSides game on free speech is objectively supporting the Left’s totalitarianism. As they generally do these days.

  2. I read through the article.

    How are conservatives squashing free speech again?

    1. bOtH sIdEs!!!1!

      1. to be sure

    2. Are you trying to force Google to put our speech on their property over their objections?

      It’s a legitimate issue.

      Not all rights violations are equal just because they’re rights violations. In my opinion, a government that requires Google to tolerate the speech of others is better than a government that requires Google to censor others, but we don’t have to pretend that forcing other people to use their property the way we want them to isn’t a violation of their property rights.

      1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      2. So, the answers seems to be: “They’re not.”

      3. Do youre fine with unconscionable contract for internet companies. Just say so already.

      4. By the way ken… why do you think internet companies should get enhanced protections? If your belief is their liability encourages actual private company, why limit 230 to one sector?

      5. Perhaps true; but I think it’s respectable that they’re using Antitrust legislation and case points (purchased defaults in other markets) to build their case instead of being centered on censorship or property take-over.

      6. We need antitrust laws enforced against the big tech / media. Right now, Google, FB, Twitter all have their own version of “facts” “Facts” really is their opinion, such as their opinion that Biden’s sons’ computer isn’t a valid story). Since “facts” has become an objective term we need to make sure there are multiple media / tech companies with different versions of “facts” so that the public and voters can be fully informed as to the story from multiple perspectives.

      7. unless used in a way that violates 230

    3. They are TRYING their damnedest to do so, by tearing down Section 230! I am praying to Government Almighty, that they do NOT succeed!

      OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230, AND MICRO-MANAGERS OF OTHER PEOPLE’S WEB SITES

      The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

      This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

      Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

      QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

      “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

      “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

      Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial and a 4-month civil trial!

      1. Thes spam bots on this comment board are really getting out of control.

        1. I see that you can NOT give a coherent answer to my questions! What a surprise!

          1. Garbage in, garbage out.

            1. Wait… are you saying Sqrsly is a model of something?

          2. I see your garbage out, and call it for what it is! I see NO answers to ANY of the questions I asked!

            1. Not so much questions on your part but hyperbolic, incomprehensible ranting and false dichotomies. If you actually asked questions in a relatively intellectually honest manner, maybe people would answer them. Instead you screech like a hyperventilating partisan hack.

              1. Do YOU want to serve on such a jury? About nit-picking things about hurt baby feelings, and poor little babies whose comments didn’t get published? It is an entirely legitimate set of questions! I see NO answers from you here, or from anyone else! Just name-calling as usual! You screeching “hyperventilating partisan hack” you! What comes around, goes around!

                1. Fuck off, spaz.

                  1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                    Fuck off, spaz!
                    You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                    You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                    Take your meds!
                    That’s so retarded!
                    You’re a Marxist!
                    Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                    Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                    Trump rules and leftists drool!
                    You are SOOO icky-poo!
                    But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                    Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

                    1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                2. None of those questions are anything close to legitimate. They are false, intellectually impaired false dichotomies meant to ridicule everyone who even dares to slightly disagree with you. And as for what goes around comes around I have rarely ever seen you add anything resembling meaningful comments or thought provoking. It is a word wall of gibberish and rarely approaches a coherent thought.

                  1. I see NO answers, STILL, to my questions about your future jury services, after you and your fellow anti-free-speech buddies have torn down Section 230 that protects us! WHY can’t you and your buddies answer my questions? Because they have NO good and decent, valid answers!

              2. Clearly a mental patient.

                1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                  2. Also, let’s talk about your love for Hitler:

                    “SQRLSY One
                    September.30.2020 at 12:53 pm

                    Yes! This FURTHER proves that Hitler was NOT a racist!
                    Since even Hitler wasn’t a racist, we can pretty firmly conclude that racism isn’t a “thing” at all!

                    1. On the off chance that anyone cares, AND gives a shit about CONTEXT (which liars like Mamma are entirely to dishonest to give a shit about), what was going on here, is that right-wing nut-jobs were being right-wing nut-jobs ass usual, and arguing that Proud Boys could NO WAY EVER be racists, because they accepted members of non-white races! So I pointed out that Hitler allied NAZIs with Japanese “Yellow Aryans”… So Hitler wasn’t racist, either!
                      Disproving stupid ideas with MORE stupid ideas, using the same so-called “logic”, escapes the mentally handicapped among us, though…
                      CRY MORE over imaginary hurtings of Your Precious Baby Feeeeelings, cry-wolf racism-mongerer whiner-crybaby!

                    2. Sqrls loves Hitler and thinks Orangemanbad.

              3. I’ve gotta agree. From what I’ve seen, most of it’s comments are incoherent and I stop reading about half way thru. Every now and then I do try to read them because it sometimes seems like there might be something there but they inevitably end up indecipherable. Seems to be the ravings of a lunatic.

                1. Opinions are like assholes… Everyone has one!

                  1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

              4. Concise and well said.

                1. Thank you EISTAU Gree-Vance!

          3. Did sqrlsy ask a question? I don’t actually read anything past the “L” in his name.

            1. That’s because you are stupid and-or lazy and-or don’t like to have your fossilized so-called “thinking” challenged!

      2. what dies Section 230 of theConstitution actually say?

        Is it a SUPERPRECEDENT?

      3. Your question is nonsense. The sentiment is an OPINION, it’s not subject to a libel suit and there would be no one with standing to file such a suit. A judge would throw it out 30 seconds after it was filed and would admonish the lawyer who was stupid enough to file it.

        You clearly have no understanding of the actual issue. Oh and if you actually do publish a website (say a Blog or independent news site), YOU are NOT Protected under Section 230…. Facebook and Twitter are… YOU ARE NOT. They have been given special legal protections that YOU DON’T GET. You can be sued for the content of your site (so can Reason), Twitter and Facebook can’t.

        1. “A judge would throw it out 30 seconds after it was filed and would admonish the lawyer who was stupid enough to file it.”

          A competent judge would… Not all judges are competent! Meanwhile, if section 230 is torn down, the likes of these comments pages (right here) will be taken down, because Reason (and others) can’t afford the constant legal hassles! Even if 99% of the cases are thrown out as ridiculous, the legal troubles (and the occasional fluke, crazy “jackpot” court winners) will mean that free-flowing comments will be too expensive. You ready to pay $5 per post? For the AI and the lawyers to examine it all?

          Meanwhile, my summary stands: Punitive wrong-think-punishing persons will kill 230? Government Almighty, I hope not! If it happens, MY free speech will be offered up to be stolen or sacrificed, to pay for the “punishment boners” of anti-free-speech, smug, self-righteous “thought police”!

          1. No one is talking about getting rid of Section 230. They are talking about whether the actions that Twitter and Facebook are engaged in are starting to cross the line from Service Provider to Content Provider.

            If Facebook and Twitter simply provide a space for people to publish content then it’s a no brainer that they are functioning as service providers.

            Once they start putting labels on the content being posted on their service saying “This content is True” or “This content is False” it seems to me that they are crossing the line from Service Provider to Content Provider.

            It’s also a question whether as a policy they are blocking or censoring content that they claim is false or unreliable… does that imply that they are vouching for the authenticity and accuracy of the content they do allow to be published? Does doing so make them accountable if that content is actually false?

    4. Some don’t like flag burning or something.

  3. So thinking giant social media platforms should not censor content such that they become agents of one political party means you hate free speech. Only someone as stupid and dishonest as Welch could write such garbage

    1. But you don’t understand, John. It’s only censorship if the government does it something, something.

      If I private company squashes speech it’s okay and if you don’t like it you can build your own internet.

      1. LibTards: Bake my gay wedding cake, in YOUR bake shop, or I will run and cry to Government Almighty!

        ConservaTurds: Publish my lies and crappity-crap, on YOUR web sites, or I will run and cry to Government Almighty!

        1. When did bakers get special legal liability protections?

        2. So everything conservatives post lies.

          1. So all gay wedding cakes are evil, or slimy, or some such? Where did simple PROPERTY RIGHTS go? If we look at PROPERTY RIGHTS, we don’t have to (publically, with the powers of Government Almighty) decide WHAT is good or evil, or truth or lies! Why can we not let BOTH the bakers AND the web site owners, decide what to do with THEIR property? What, because we all have YUUGE punishment boners, right? ALL who are WRONG, must be PUNISHED!?

            Have you ever contemplated what a HUGE evil, self-righteousness is? Didn’t Jesus have a few things to say about all that?

            1. Why did you skip the question about what special protections bakers get?

            2. So bake-shop owners get fucked up (or not fucked up) at the whims of Government Almighty… So we MUST do the same thing to web site owners? Government Almighty fucks you over unfairly, so it MUST do the SAME thing to ME, to make it all fair? HOW are we going to move towards individual freedom, with this kind of thinking? Just because YOU have a punishment boner? PLEASE don’t make ME pay for YOUR punishment boner, you pervert!

              1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                1. Ask, and ye shall receive wisdom!

                  Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

                  We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

                  See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
                  “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

                  https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/

                  He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

                  All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

                  Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

                  Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

                  We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

                  These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

                  1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

                  2. Sqrlsy, you will not be missed when you finally get your suicide right.

                    1. Hey Granite-for-“brains”, drinking Shitsy Shitler’s Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                      He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                      Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                      Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                      Has no thoughts that help the people,
                      He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                      On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                      Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                      Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                      You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                      Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                      The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                      A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
                      https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

                      Hey Granite-for-“brains”…
                      If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
                      Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
                      You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

            3. Notice you didn’t answer a simple question but instead posted a wall of gibberish, and empty ad hominems based upon nothing I have ever actually posted?
              I did not at all say they should be forced to post anything I simply asked if you believe everything conservatives post to be lies. Instead of answering you posted a rant full of hyperbole.

              1. I do not believe that everything that conservatives post are lies. Only empty-headed morons make over-broad statements like that.

                Do you think that everything posted by REAL, individual-freedom-respecting libertarians is garbage?

                Do you think that baker-shop owners should be subjected to every whim of their customers, and do you think that web-site owners should be subjected to every whim of their customers? Or that Government Almighty should micro-manage such affairs? Last but not least, will you gladly serve on multi-month juries to help Government Almighty micro-manage such affairs?

                I answered YOUR question; when are you going to answer mine?

        3. SQRLSY is making you all look bad on this argument.

        4. Not actually equivalent.

          I the case of the Baker, they are being fined by the government for refusing to place a message on a cake that they disagree with.

          In the case of Twitter they are simply being asked to choose whether they wish to function as a public utility in which case they are entitled to the same legal protections as every other public utility (e.g. your ISP or the phone company)….. or function as a media company that exerts editorial control over content, in which case they are due the same legal protections that apply to every other media company (e.g. the NY Times, Reason, you if you run a blog).

          Currently Twitter and Facebook are trying to have their cake and eat it too… they are trying to function like a media company but get the protections of a utility.

          1. So if we ask the cake-baker to either be a publisher or a media provider, that would make it (pushing the baker around) all nice and pretty? And we can have lawyers endlessly hairsplitting about whether the cake-baker was acting as one or the other? Do you want to serve as a juror for that, and do you want your taxes to pay for courtrooms and judges to supervise these debates? The people who sell me pens and papers, are they media providers or publishers? To common-sense people, they are clearly media providers, but the legal systems do NOT always have common sense! Lawyers WILL tie up courts and juries over senseless things, if we give them nebulous laws that allow them to do so!

            Reason (right here) is enabled by Section 230, to provide us this comments forum, WITHOUT getting entangled in hair-splitting lawyers! Kill Section 230, and you kill our comments forum!

          2. What would it look like, if we assigned armies of lawyers, judges, and politicians to decide if cake-bakers are “media” or “publishers”?

            1) If you want to be “media” you will allow the customers to write with icing, on the cake, just the same as commenters peck at the keyboards, themselves. As soon as you pick up the icing dispenser and YOU are writing it, with YOUR hands, now obviously you are a PUBLISHER, because YOU wrote it!

            2) You also may NOT watch the customers in your bake shop, to see if they write something offensive to you or others (“God hates fags” or “God loves gay weddings”), and selectively stop one, the other, or both, from walking out the door of your bake shop, with that kind of cake! You may NOT exercise any “editorial control”, or you are a publisher!

            3) Now your customer is able to brag that YOUR store is where he got the cake with the message that YOU don’t like! Bystanders can see what cake-messages are going out of your front door, that you disagree with! AND the customers are now free to boycott you, because STUPID laws messed with YOUR freedom and YOUR property rights as the bake-shop owner!

    2. I wonder sometimes of the 230 saved the internet people realize they sound as histrionic as the net neutrality saved the internet people.

      1. “Histrionic” is the magic insult-word that wins the argument for JesseSPAZ!

    3. Private companies should be forced to publish foreign propaganda. Not a libertarian position, not a conservative position. What are you John?

      1. Since when did you give a shit about conservative and libertarian positions you greasy little concern trolll.

    4. — The articles narrative being painted is flawed propaganda —
      “So thinking giant social media platforms should not censor content such that they become agents of one political party means you hate free speech.”

      — but the concept is accurate —
      LibTards: Bake my gay wedding cake, in YOUR bake shop, or I will run and cry to Government Almighty!
      ConservaTurds: Publish my *bias-edit-stuff*(lol.. censorship?), on YOUR web sites, or I will run and cry to Government Almighty!

      Luckily; The Republicans don’t have to change their current position of Antitrust but only needs to argue the propaganda narrative. The Republicans aren’t trying to legislate that their cake be “baked” by anyone; only that “one bake shop” selling 98% of wedding cakes is an Antitrust issue.

  4. The more politics (and its worst form, war) subsumes life, the more free speech is treated as a means to an end rather than as a magnificent if always-threatened achievement of the Enlightenment.

    Well, we know the Enlightenment has been under a long, concentrated attack that originated in post-modernist theory back in the 1960s. One party has taken the fruits of this academic pursuit to heart. So at this point, we’re taking our “enlightenment” chances… and I’m hedging my bets.

    1. The Enlightenment was so enamored of free speech that it… resulted in the French Revolution’s mass murder of political enemies for their thoughts and ideas, in turn resulting in successive Republics that never once enshrined free speech in their charters.

      I love being talked down to by pseudointellectuals who think their zip code is a stand-in for the education, breeding, culture, and intelligence they never actually received.

      1. You thinkthe Reign of Terror was The Enlightenment?

        It was the end of it, dunce

  5. I love free speech. you assholes who get paid for your words, voices and faces and abuse the freedom are the problem.

  6. Off topic idea: limit all politicians to a single term. On the election for the next incumbent, add a question on whether the previous incumbent gets (a) paid anything, (b) contribution to a 401(k), (c) jail.

    The usual argument for allowing re-election is that incumbents needing some reason to get re-elected will try harder to do good. This is a much better and more real encouragement.

    1. Not allowing a politician to remain in power for a lifetime while destroying Enlightenment values is anti-enlightenment!

    2. Single term limits have been tried elsewhere- it just creates a machine. You just have a pipeline of Yes-Persons whose turn it is. Hell, this is basically what we have had at a presidential level for years- merely sometimes the person whose turn it is gets bumped out of line by an orange or black man.

      I don’t think there is a system that fixes things- other than getting a populace who understands liberty, tanstaafl, and basic economics.

      1. What about skewed-offset ranked-choice top three quantum parliamentary party representational voting?

        1. Random citizen appointments with citizens able to opt out.

      2. My plan includes the public voting on what he gets at the end of his term. That alone would be a sea change.

        1. Probably creates an incentive to more looting of the fisc. “Don’t jail us. Here’s $2.2T.”

          1. Amen to that – let’s go full bore on the incentives. Give every Congressman and every Senator a portion of the national budget and let them distribute their share as they see fit among all the various programs of the federal government. Anything they want to apportion beyond their share comes out of their own pocket. Anything they don’t apportion, half goes back to the Treasury, the other half they can stick in their pocket. How fast would the federal budget be running a surplus? How many candidates would you have to choose from next election? How many of those candidates would be essentially bidding on the office in terms of how cheaply they would work? It may be galling to know that your government is essentially being sold to the lowest bidder, but it’s all about the incentives. You ain’t getting this mess straightened out by appealing to the better nature of these noble and selfless angels running for office, you’re going to have to settle for getting this mess straightened out by appealing to the greed of these crooked sonsabitches we actually have.

            1. I like that plan. The way it works now the more they steal from us to give away to their pet projects (and spend funny money inflated dollars) it just creates a rent seekers paradise, where it just spirals out of control.

    3. Something simple it would be to increase the size of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1920, when the population was a third of what it is. Three times more districts results in better representation and bless power and fewer safe districts.

      1. And if paired with some form of reasonable term limits, e.g. two terms for each office, it greatly reduces the power they can accrue. Increasing the size of the HoR doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment and thus would not be overly difficult yo achieve, and as this is a census year the new seats can be voted on on 2022.

      2. The size of the House is a prime driver of its dysfunction. It’s so large that it has a management hierarchy, with seniority critical to wielding power. Expanding it would makes things worse.

        The original concept of geographical representation has been fundamentally corrupted by the size of the House.

        (And the original concept of states’ representation has been fundamentally corrupted by the 17th Amendment. So we are well and truly fucked.)

        1. You have that backwards. Districts are so large, because they haven’t changed despite a 300% increase in population in over a century. The fewer Representatives you have, the less responsive they are and the more power they accrue.

        2. And this growth in the size of districts, both in area and population has killed geographical representation. Every ten years it is a constant battle of which state loses and which state gains seats. It becomes a constant game of politics rather than anything approaching proportional representation. It is a demand with limited extremely limited supply.

        3. Sound design depends on checks and balances. Undermining those … selling out state power to get a piece of federal funding … undermines state power. People do not have a sense of cause-effect at the rate of checks and balances if instead they develop at rate of goading partisanship and current-event.

          Independence isn’t their value … power equals getting your state’s share of money BACK from the pool.

          Checks & balances solved the problem, but greed was too strong, so away with apportionment among the states and on with limitless derivation so people shall cease to relate tazation as a case of state economic output outstanding.

  7. I have no problem limiting the speech of far leftists, progtards, democrats, and anyone else who promotes collectivism. I see no reason to give them a platform.

    1. I do. They should be allowed to speak, and their ideas challenged and grappled with.

      1. And when they take away your right and capability of challenging their ideas you’ll have to grapple with them with their violence.

        1. That’s one of the many attendant risks of freedom, but following the NIAP beats the alternative. There will never be a shortage of self-righteous groups eager to take away others’ rights and ‘grappling’ may well come, but that doesn’t justify or excuse abandoning your own professed principles. Be the change you want to see. If we abandon our principles when things get difficult, we never had any to begin with.

        2. That’s what the second amendment is for… it’s the catch for when the first fails.

    2. nobody is forced to listen to or act on anyone else’s words

  8. “‘Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) agree that Facebook and Twitter are guilty of “election interference”‘

    For my money, they seem to define “election interference” as daring to let people express their opinions regarding the candidates and the issues. In the world of Cruz and Warren, such opinions need to be carefully filtered.

    1. Literally every company that provides information services on the web is making an in-kind contribution to one, and only one, political party, but yes, it’s those dastardly Republicans who want to silence the opposition.

    2. Cruz is upset that journalism critical of Democrats is being suppressed by the platforms. Warren is upset that criticisms of Democrats are not being suppressed enough.

  9. I used to participate regularly in a phone in morning radio show. It was great fun.

    There were a panel of media professionals discussing Julian Assanges fate. An editor said he was a traitor.

    I said that traitors give the advantage to one side while Assange shared the information equally with everyone.

    The editor then said “ information is power and I want the power on “our” side”.

    He never clarified whose side “ours” was.

    There are no call in radio shows today.

    1. I used to participate regularly in a phone in morning radio show

      Art Bell aired at one a.m.
      You were an early bird.

      1. Art Bell had his standards. He would have let you on the air if you wanted to talk about extraterrestrial abductions. But he damn sure didn’t put Nazi conspiracy theorists on his program.

        1. You’re a troll and a bigot.

          You’ve got a lot of work to do if you want to graduate to.conspiracy theorist.

          1. Says the demented Holocaust denier!

            Sane people with a grip on reality don’t deny history, as history is defined by a vast, vast majority of historians, with (in cases like this) boat-loads of evidence. No, historians and history aren’t perfect… Nothing (or hardly anything) is. But your denial of overwhelming consensus history shows some pretty severe paranoia… Everyone is out to “get you” and to trick you, right?
            I am doing a service to readers who aren’t familiar with your paranoia… Let all new (or newer) readers beware, much of what Rob Misek has to say, needs to be examined carefully!

            The Earth is actually flat, and the center of the Universe.
            A secret cabal of Jewish bankers is diabolically manipulating the world towards world-wide communism.
            Space aliens secretly comprise 10% of Earthings, and are twisting us and them towards the day when they will enslave and eat us all!
            The Earth is hollow, with a vast array of large, powerful beings living underneath us.
            Being part of a TINY-TINY elite of humans who know the “secret truth” is the other element of your serious whack… Paranoia, and “special elite knowledge”… The later is evidence of mania, of egomania… Some serious self-examination on your part, would be in order!

            You can show Rob Misek an endless parade of well-documented history books about the holocaust, interviews with a few survivors, and video of walking tours of holocaust museums and preserved genocide sites (gas chambers etc), photos of starved corpses stacked cordwood-style…
            And Rob Misek will “summarize” for you, saying,
            “OK, sure, I’ve heard that before! Ha!…
            ‘Mustache Man Bad’ hyped propaganda!”
            #Mustache_Man_Bad

            1. You’re also a troll and a bigot.

              This discussion has nothing to do with the bullshit holocaust narrative or how many times I’ve refuted it. You’re a troll.

              The fact that you can’t seem to recall that I’ve soundly refuted your cherished false narrative demonstrates your refusal to consider counter arguments. You’re a bigot.

              You are a waste of skin. A troll and bigot who pollutes free dialogue. I demonstrate this EVERY time you show up. Fuck off.

              1. The dipshit sqrlsy that I responded to cited a book as proof of “the holocaust”.

                “ Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” is about some polish police who confessed to killing Jews for Nazis as per the narrative.

                Thing is, none of them were executed or punished in exchange for their grizzly story. That makes their story, as all the others, coerced and inadmissible as evidence in any court of justice.

                The troll bigot cut and ran as they all do.

                1. Can we all agree that no matter how much we disagree on issues, none of us are as reprehensible as Rob Misek?

                  1. Misek is an anti-semitic statist in a fantasy land, but SQRLSY, against all rational expectations, manages to be even more pathetic and reprehensible.

                  2. Yup. Everyone hates Misek.

                2. So we get to pick between a guy who thinks he’s better than Abraham Lincoln and a guy who can barely form a coherent thought. Yikes.

                3. Threading fail.

                4. SQRLSY v Misek

                  CRIPPLE FIGHT

                  1. TIMMAYY!

          2. “You’re a troll and a bigot.”

            For identifying you as a lying Nazi?
            Nope; being honest, lying Nazi.

            1. Partial cremation retardo.

              1. I’ll explain my statement.

                On another discussion when the usual trolls and bigots showed up I enjoyed refuting them.

                One dipshit said they “saw pictures” of burnt bodies from the “ovens”. I asked why there would be anything more than ashes after cremation. Retard sevo said “ it’s called partial cremation dontcha know”. When I asked whyanyone want to make such a mess, coward retardo cut and ran as all troll bigots do.

      2. Then there was the time the lament dipshit regaled us with the story of his lying gramps who was telling anyone who would listen that his job during “the holocaust” was carrying the dead bodies out of the gas chambers, day after day.

        The dumb fuck didn’t know that cyanide is absorbed through the skin and his lying gramps would have died on his first day.

        Haha.

        1. Nope, but I said my grandfather was a Canadian attached to the British 11th Armoured Division and liberated Bergen-Belsen. He never touched a corpse but he saw more than 10,000 emaciated corpses stacked like cordwood. The ones that hadn’t starved to death were killed by injections or shot because Belsen didn’t have gas chambers.

          Of course you know this, but you’re deliberately twisting what I said because you’re a dishonest piece of shit.

          Oh, and have you ever heard of fucking rubber gloves?

          1. Gloves wouldn’t provide enough protection when dragging out thousands of naked dead bodies daily. Maybe full hazmat suits would.

            Did your gramps mention those or the bodies being bright pink from cyanide poisoning?

            I get it. You believe your lying gramps without so much as a shred of physical evidence to back it up and you are unwilling to consider the evidence that refutes it.

            Fuck of bigot.

            1. There are plenty of “survivor” bullshit stories.

              Here’s one who drew a picture of people being dragged out of gas chambers by bare handed and shirtless Jews, who apparently defied science by surviving.

              FULL OF SHIT

              http://mixedmeters.com/2013/01/inside-gas-chambers.html?m=1

    2. There are no call in radio shows today.

      Sure there are, they’re just on youtube.

      1. YouTube isn’t radio.

        1. Rob Misek isn’t a sane or rational person.

          1. Holy shit. The pot can speak.

            1. And the snot can squeak out hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

              1. You seem hurt. Are you okay buddy? Need me to call someone for you? Get you some help?

                1. If you’re so concerned for the welfare of others, you could stop LYING!

                  Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
                  “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                  Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  I say again, this is important…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                  We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                  Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

        2. Technically true, but it ain’t television either. No one laments the enshrinkening of CNN.

          Example.

          1. Are you actually conflating a phone in radio program which put free speech on public airwaves during rush hour with MSM propaganda?

            That’s just lame.

  10. Just in the past week we’ve seen a New York Times Magazine cover story on “The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation”

    Pretty soon journalists are going to start believing their clickbait (print or not) stories about the relative value of speech rights.

    1. I’m pretty sure they’re just printing whatever Tom Perez tells them and they’re not worrying themselves with abstract concepts like speech rights.

    2. Your doctor doesn’t want you to know about this one weird trick to get rid of pesky free speech rights for good?

  11. For me, a useful exercise in undstanding how far we’re falling in terms of Free Speech, think back to 2010/2011, during the middle east protests when the press wistfully described telegenic young people on the streets, fighting for human rights and utilizing Twitter– a powerful tech tool in spreading democracy– to organize their efforts. Now imagine telling those in media that in 2020, those same tech companies would be banning or blocking the accounts of a major, estabishment media organization because it broke a major story that was critical of a given candidate for the presidency. You’d have been laughed out of the room.

    Now we debate it in earnest.

    Imagine in the 1980s, telling your average journalist that his newspaper or media organizations in general would be running front-page, above-the-fold stories about how free speech has gone too far. Imagine telling the editor of the fledgling Wired magazine that they’d be doing a major cover story about how Free Speech represents a grave threat to American Democracy.

    You’d have been laughed out of the room.

    Now we debate these things in earnest.

    1. I would LOVE to be transported back in time, into the studios of NPR– as recently in the 90s, and wait for one of those hacks to wax poetic about how the press are the “guardians of the First Amendment” and then show them copies of the anti-free speech drek they’re championing now.

    2. You’re substituting an idealistic fantasy of 2010-2011 for the reality. They never gave a fuck about free speech. They just wanted to meltdown the middle east to justify more wars and interventions by our Nobel Peace Prize-winner chocolate messiah. Twitter was doing the exact same shit then that they are doing now. It was about politics, not principle.

      1. I give them credit that they did care about freedom of speech, because riiiight up until… oh, I dunno… the internet they controlled the narrative. ONce they saw that control begin to erode due to disruptive technologies, then they stopped caring.

      1. Isn’t that insane?
        Like I said before, the media isn’t bothering to hide the iron glove anymore because they’re all in. This is America’s last presidential election.

      2. NPR?

        NPC.

    3. think back to 2010/2011, during the middle east protests when the press wistfully described telegenic young people on the streets, fighting for human rights and utilizing Twitter– a powerful tech tool in spreading democracy– to organize their efforts.

      Considering those protests had all the hallmarks of a Color Revolution template, and given what happened afterward, we probably shouldn’t be lionizing those particular events too much.

      The CIA’s record in fomenting these revolutions are utter shit in terms of the chaos that follows afterward. They assumed their success in bringing down the Eastern bloc with these measures was a roadmap to be followed, not a unique event with a unique set of circumstances.

  12. The partisan lopsidedness to this debate, between attempted authoritarian and “enemy of the people,”

    The enemy of the people rant was something I didn’t pay much attention to, then the BLM riots started…

  13. Face it. Any true believer engaged in a holy war never did and never will support free speech. Certain ideological factions might be convenient allies at times but the benefits are temporary at best.

  14. For me, a useful exercise in undstanding how far we’re falling in terms of Free Speech, think back to 2010/2011, during the middle east protests when the press wistfully described telegenic young people on the streets, fighting for human rights and utilizing Twitter– a powerful tech tool in spreading democracy– to organize their efforts. Now imagine telling those in media that in 2020, those same tech companies would be banning or blocking the accounts of a major, estabishment media organization because it broke a major story that was critical of a given candidate for the presidency. You’d have been laughed out of the room. Difference between Healthy and Unhealthy Food

  15. Welch persists in his dishonest “the left and the right are equally bad” on freedom of speech. This is nonsense of course. The left’s tech allies are censoring all forms of conservative expression. Matt will continue with this even if Reason itself is banned from Twitter.

    Matt’s dishonesty is really a function of social milieu: the parlor of elites where he seeks acceptance would shun him if he were honest.

    1. I’m glad we agree that “conservative expression” amounts to skeezy regurgitation of Russian disinformation on Twitter. John Locke would be so proud.

      1. Tony McCarthy knows it’s those damn Russkies.

        1. Are you arguing that Russia does not engage in election interference and disinformation campaigns? Why would that be? Because they’re nice?

          1. People are so stupid. They need to be shielded because they are too dumb to disseminate what they see on Facebook.

            And this makes everything so terrible and unfair for all of the collective.

          2. yes, they did in 2016. in collusion with the Hillary campaign

            1. You are misinformed.

    2. I agree Welch is partly dishonest in his “the left and right are equally bad” but Reason authors usually do it because the left and right political establishment since Reason existed, has been on the same team, until Trump.

      Matt points to the DOJ draft legislation the DOJ drafted to change 230 as Trump’s bad, but hasn’t Trump defended free speech and a media that does its job instead of sides with a party? Not everyone hates free speech. Trump also said his goal was to get these businesses from censoring political speech.

      Matt spoke out against the bomber’s veto, and a timid press, but nary a word about politically slanted censorship on social platforms that seem to have a virtual monopoly, but don’t really. At least he mentions the censorship of Biden corruption. Is it OK if some hotels restrict who sleeps there at night if other hotels will take the rejected blacks, or rejected conservatives, when the CRA prohibits the first but not the later.

      Matt would also do better offering some libertarian ideas to reform the 230 law promoting freedom of speech on the internet, and what’s specifically wrong with the DOJ proposal. Trump said he wants something where these firms don’t censor political speech, that’s libertarian, and Welch should help with some good suggestions. I’m sure libertarian lawyers have some good ideas.

      1. Also here in Reason in the article on DeVos and “This Building Has Caused More Problems than It’s Solved”:

        “President Trump announced an executive order in March 2019 on campus free speech. For people who want colleges and universities to be more respectful of free speech, should the direction to do that come from the federal government?

        I think it’s more about pursuing egregious complaints about the lack of respect for free speech—making examples of those institutions that deny it for whatever purpose—than to try to regulate it. Because if we tried to regulate free speech in the manner that we think appropriate, it would undoubtedly get twisted in a future administration to do just the opposite.”

        Some people support freedom of speech, including libertarians.

  16. “…President Donald Trump has been waging preemptive war against upcoming debate moderator Kristin Welker and 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl…”

    What does that have to do with freedom of speech? In no way is he preventing them from speaking.

    1. Stahl’s interview is in the past, so it’s not preemptive. And after watching the unedited video, Trump was right.

  17. Is this a debate or a grilling session? This damn moderator seems to think she’s party to the debate. Have moderators in previous elections been so adversarial?

    1. See Anderson Cooper moderating Trump-Clinton, or Candy Crowley moderating Romney-Obama.

      1. Are you saying they were equally confrontational and argumentative or that they treated the candidates with more equanimity?

        1. Cooper was clearly biased. Crowley practically jumped onto the stage to defend Obama.

          1. I’ll take your word for it. I will say that at least there is some semblance of proposal and rebuttal in this event (I won’t it dignify it with the word “debate”), even if she consistently gives Biden more time for responses.

  18. No one is as gifted as Trump at working the crowd and whipping an audience into a frenzy in the context of a rally, but I don’t think his talents are as suited to this format, especially when he has to take on the moderator as well as his opponent. He’s a little out of his element.

  19. Biden looks retarded and sounds like a simpering chimp when he laughs.

    1. Get to zero emissions by 2025?? LMFAO.

      1. The party of “science” doesn’t believe in thermodynamics.

      2. In fairness, he’s probably not sure what decade we’re in

        1. His concept of the future includes Marty McFly on a hoverboard and a time-travelling Delorean that runs on garbage.

    2. Biden’s playing dodgeball.

      1. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania?

        Boom.

      2. As in he’s throwing the ball or he’s getting blown up by it?

        1. As in he’s doing everything possible to avoid answering pointed questions.

          1. Well, he did directly say he’ll not ban fracking. Heh.

    3. That being said, he sounds like he’s been fed the questions ahead of time. Maybe that’s what was happening during this most recent lid.

      1. With this last answer, he literally sounded like he was reading off a teleprompter. Borderline impressive to sound so rehearsed.

    4. Did Trump mention his peace deals? If not, that was a mistake.

      1. I don’t know. I only tuned in for the last few minutes.

        Down here in South Carolina, I’m about to fill in my New Jersey mail-in ballot. Whose bubble should I fill in?

        1. Doesn’t matter, they’ll correct it for you.

        2. X through one, slash through another, fill in the one next to Jorgensen. It’s NJ, does it matter?

  20. So we get to pick between a guy who thinks he’s better than Abraham Lincoln and a guy who can barely form a coherent thought. Yikes.

  21. I’m glad she acknowledged the monstrous premise of this otherwise good comedy. A couple breaks up, so they decide to divide up their infant twins — so each girl will never see the other parent, her sister, or any of her other relatives again? Or even know she has a sister? Just as in the original version of this movie, the real villains a re clearly both parents…….. Read More  

  22. Don’t be fooled, The Media at all corners has consistently striven to contort specific threats as violence, unique protections for journalists and tech companies, and claim the “right” to disrupt business as “free speech”.

    That some parties are opposed to violence, special protections, and the disruption of business doesn’t make them anti-free speech.

  23. So section 230 was designed to carve out a special protection from being SUED for liability for content neutral UTILITIES due to the content transmitted over them by users. That’s fair because the Utility isn’t seeking to exert any editorial control over the content. It’s not acting as an authority and telling you “This content is real, you should pay attention to it, this content is fake, disbelieve it”
    It was meant to protect utilities like your ISP or your Telecom provider or your email provider or the web company that hosts your blog.
    It does NOT protect media companies like the NY Times, or FOX or Reason or Slate from being held libel over the content they PRODUCE or PROMOTE or choose to publish…. even in editorials.

    Companies like Facebook and Twitter started out acting like simple utilities. They were platforms for users to post content. They didn’t care what that content was, didn’t seek to control it, didn’t editorialize it and slap labels on it that said “believe this”, “Don’t believe this”. In other words they acted like simple utilities (like your ISP) and deserved being protected by them.

    That is what has changed. They are no longer doing that. They have started acting alot more like media companies that produce and control content and exert editorial control over it. Once they have crossed that line…they no longer deserve the special protections they were granted under section 230.

    Removing the special protections they receive under section 230 is NOT the government removing their free speech rights. It’s simply putting them in the SAME category as Fox or the NY Times or Reason or a Cake Shop owner. They are still free to publish any content they wish…just as the NY Times is…. they are however accountable for the content they produce IF IT IS MALICIUSLY FALSE… just like the NY Times is.

    1. Except it isn’t – “content they produce” short of labeling user-content.

  24. If there is no free speech, then there can be no republic (“res” “public” – the thing of the people). A mob screaming for justice is not speech, it is a mob that will be controlled by whatever strongman can win the most muscle to his side.

    1. When the cancel culture outlaws words or changes the definitions of words they can’t outlaw, there is no free speech.

  25. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everYone. Work for three to eight hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments…… Read More  

  26. The original cancel culture: conservatives wanting a flag burning amendment.

  27. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

  28. I’d believe that our domestic Conservatives are sincere in the whining about censorship, if domestic Conservatives also advocated that their Religious Right Conservative competitors in ISIL/Daesh also be allowed to peddle their BS on college campuses/on social media without censorship – And if Conservatives demanded that Bernie, the Conservative Media of investing, Madoff be set free because he only gave people his “opinion” that they would get their money back if they invested it with him.

    Also, if Conservatives are allowed to spew their never ending lies in order to defraud voters into voting for Conservatives vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology – I should be able to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater in order to get better seats or call in a bomb threat to the doctor’s office if I’m running late for an appointment in order to hide the fact that I’m running late.

    We hung Julius Streicher at Nuremberg for his spewing Rightwing Conservatives lies, what makes today’s Rightwing Conservatives sooooooooooooo special that they too should not join Streicher in Hell.

    Joseph Goebbels also never personally killed anyone, that didn’t stop him from quickly killing himself once he clued in that he would have to face the consequences of his spewing Rightwing Conservatives lies.

    1. It’s obvious that you’re conflicted between protecting lying as free speech and stopping the damage it causes.

      Do you think the solution to let everyone lie all the time or to end lying by criminalizing it?

  29. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.