Social Media Censorship and The First Amendment
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.

Should the federal government be able to "urge," "encourage," "pressure," or "induce" social media companies into censoring free speech about COVID-19? A recent ruling in federal court said no. That ruling is the subject of this month's Soho Forum Debate between law professor Kate Klonick and professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. The resolution is: "The making of national internet policy was hindered, rather than helped, by the July 4th federal court ruling that restricted the Biden administration's communications with social media platforms."
Arguing for the affirmative is Kate Klonick, an associate professor at St. John's University Law School, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a distinguished scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies. Her writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and numerous other publications.
Arguing against the resolution is Jay Bhattacharya, M.D. Ph.D., a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, as well as a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. Dr. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, an open letter published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Statists also wanted the truth masked.
The truth is disinformation if it disagrees with the government.
/sarcasmic
A Ministry of Managing MisInformation (MoMMI) is needed to censor speech and people that are against the approved narrative.
THIS is why Chumpy Chump AND Spermy Daniels DEMAND the removal of Section 230!!! So that Our Betters May Rule And Drool (Forever!) over ALL of us peons!!! AND pee-on us all!!!
Translation: “I didn’t take my meds today.”
The founders recognized that censorship is fascism. As a result we have the constitutional right to free speech.
The ONLY legitimate reason to communicate has always been to share truth aka reality. Lies are coercion.
Public communication was manageable with our current laws when the ONLY places to do so were physical town halls and a few print media. Lies were fewer in number.
Now with social media, EVERY place where people can comment to the public is a town square. There are millions of lies which have become unmanageable with our current laws.
We have few choices.
Let everyone lie and make communication meaningless. Taking us back to the evolutionary level of invertebrates.
Let liars decide which lies are allowed and which aren’t. Fascism like we see in todays censorship. We don’t get to speak freely based on when those in power don’t want us to.
Codify in law the objectivity of correctly applied logic and science to discern and demonstrate truth aka reality. Lies are censored without fascism. We get to speak freely without the coercion of lies.
Put it to a referendum.
So the Aryan Pure Superman wants to go back to the days of meeting halls like the Reichstag that can be burned down and used as a pretext and Potemkin front for dictatorship, hmmm?
And the Aryan Pure Superman wants to go back to the days of the printing presses when the press was free only to he who could own one, printing presses like Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy's that could be destroyed by mindless, violent lynch mobs?
Or printing presses like Joseph Goebbels' Der Stürmer that required government taxpayer support and monopoly and forced Anti-Jewish venom into the minds of impressionable German young people and gullible German adults?
And the Aryan Pure Superman thinks he is qualified to distinguish truth from lies for everyone when he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a Jewish Kol Nidre Boy and he thus lies to himself?
The very Aryan Pure Superman who cannot acknowledge the factual errors, logical contradictions, and brazen bullshit in his Holocaust Denial, who thus sgain lies to himself and thinks himself the ultimate arbiter of truth?
Well, if you want to force humanity to go Luddite with it's technology and to go Pre-Enlightenment Dark Ages in mentality and Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Mystical obcruantist mind control, I have only one reply:
Fuck Off, Nazi!
And the right to freedom of thought and expression is a product of Man's nature as a Rational Animal who must think, produce, and keep the results in order to survive. The U.S. Constitution only makes this right official and is not the origjn of this right. And this right is not the rightful subject of qnyone's whim, whether it be a referndum whim by a democratic mob or the executive whim of a Führer or Commissar or President, or yours.
Again, Fuck Off, Nazi!
"The founders recognized that censorship is fascism."
No, the Founders did not recognize anything as "fascism". Fascism as an ideology would not be invented for over a century past when the Founders lived.
While the word fascism post dates the founders it is still the best word today to describe principles that date back to Ancient Greece.
Of course the founders were aware of these principles and the constitution was created to guard against them.
Are you trying to be irrelevant?
Why are you against Fascism, since both Mussolini and Franco adapted Anti-Jewish policies when they made alliances with Nazi Germany?
And if you are that ignorant and contradictory about Fascism and your Anti-Jewish hatred, then by what stretch of the imagination can you possibly serve as an arbiter of truth versus lies?
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Hatred is conflict. I am in conflict with what Jews have done and are doing.
Jews and Nazis are like peanut butter and chocolate.
Except Jews are committing a holocaust in Gaza with your tax dollars.
And Jews are employing real Nazis in Ukraine with your tax dollars.
You didn't answer my questions! That bespeaks evasion of the truth and self-deception!
Turn yourself into yourself and give yourself capital punishment!
And Fuck Off, Nazi!
nice article
With at least two masks.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.work.salary49.Com
The resolution is: "The making of national internet policy was hindered, rather than helped, by the July 4th federal court ruling that restricted the Biden administration's communications with social media platforms."
So, trust the government and give it more power, or not?
ps. To sort out the partisan shills, answer the question as if your enemies controlled the government.
Arguing for the affirmative is Kate Klonick,
The unmarried liberal white chick wants censorship. What a shocker.
I bet her nickname around the office is "Karen".
Or “Jeff”.
She's obese?
Or perhaps regularly sends out voluminous, whiny, and meandering office memos.
Does she accept the cultural consensus in all things except for when the consensus disagrees with her?
Assistant to the HR Manager
Would have thought DEI. They all seem pretty obese.
1.5 hours?? Are you fucking kidding me?
A transcript would be helpful in order to glean the salient points of this discussion, vs losing and hour and a half of my life that I will never get back.
Tell me you're unable to multi-task without telling me you're unable to multi-task.
If you get a memory error, just stare at the wall till it frees up.
Or reboot yourself.
https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1738138210578899377?t=DtBMYpJiTSE49GkCYBZq_w&s=19
>Unprecedented immigration to the UK (750k net migrants last year).
>0 economic growth. Economy actually shrinks.
It's almost as if the economic arguments for mass immigration are total bunk and there's really some other reason why the government won't stop importing people...
They must have overlooked the food truck data.
Illegals always equals profit.
/sarcasmic
It's no wonder you oppose defamation lawsuits. That probably includes libel and slander. After all if you were held accountable for the lies you tell about people you'd be in some deep doo doo.
Speaking for yourself there, Sarc, after what you pulled in the other thread this morning?
Cite? Whatever i said prior doesn't count and I don't even remember what I said earlier.
/sarcasmic
Well, he is a blackout drunk.
Which I expect to be acknowledged as soon as the damage has properly been done to native Brits.
Certain masses of immigrants are just good for the Party.
And none of those "rich men North of Richmond" will in any way be affected by it. That's for us slobs to bear.
https://twitter.com/RealUCBfosho/status/1737916479754957040?t=8GcoyVr8FiQsbggWeQ__Gg&s=19
If the public knew how much work went in to getting a mass group of people together at point A (at a certain time, with a packing list, etc) and get it moving to point B, they’d have a better understanding of how orchestrated and intentional these movements are.
[Link]
"Them Arabs in motherfu-kin' Detroit tried to kill me!"
https://thepostmillennial.com/agitators-attack-guests-at-michigan-state-reps-christmas-party-to-demand-end-to-israel-hamas-war
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"the federal government's role in social media"
NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NODDA....
The Nazi's need to shut-down their indoctrination camps...
But, what if someone says something untrue? Don’t we need our infallible government to stop that?
Not with 'guns' they don't. "Our infallible government" lol....
As I said before, Jay wins by showing up.
This debate covered the range of views from disaffected, virus-flouting wingnut to right-wing think tank mouthpiece!
Got any more retarded copypasta there Artie, or did you shoot your wad for the day?
Reverend Wish-I-Had-a-Delete-Button peaked with this legendary faceplant a few years ago:
I wouldn’t mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021.
I will remember our exchanges fondly when I --with the culture war's other winners -- am pissing on the grave of your stale, bigoted, faux libertarian, right-wing thinking.
Open wider, clinger. Better Americans have plenty more progress to shove down the throats of the culture war's deplorable casualties.
Your disaffectedness will end with your replacement. Until then, you and the other Republicans will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters. Thank you for your compliance, Sandra. You get to whine about it as much as you like, misfit -- but you will comply.
Why don't you and Herr Misek go plot to rule the world from your fucking rat cage like Pinky and the Brain:
Pinky and the Brain Intro
https://youtu.be/GBkT19uH2RQ?si=ojtwVv2eatpiMDdU
My only question is which of you two would be which?
🙂
😉
Carry on and Fuck Off, Klinger! And save some length on your flourishing cape so Herr Misek can get The Eichmann Treatment too!
No. Simple.
Separate question: what can the Federal government do where a social media poster is posting misinformation? "Nothing" is not an option - the Federal government has a legitimate Constitutional role, general welfare, etc.
I am not so cretinous as to believe that by definition when the Federal government says the scientific data are this, and some private citizen says they're not, the citizen is right.
the Federal government has a legitimate Constitutional role, general welfare, etc
Hahahahhahahaha. Shrike things the general welfare clause empowers the government to do what the fuck they want under a nebulous descriptive clause.
Hey shrike, if the taxation clause did what you claim it does, there would be no need for any other clause in the constitution.
This was literally fucking discussed in the Federalist Papers.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
They literally worried about idiots like you over 20p years ago. Lol.
Still not shrike, you lying POS.
The meaning of the general welfare clause has been broadened over the decades, but that doesn't mean that an overly narrow reading is correct.
You clearly don't know any of the relevant more modern cases concerning the welfare clause, and the Federalist papers are not law, even as they have informed SC decisions.
Nor did I claim that the general welfare clause was the only relevant clause, and it appears from your response that you didn't understand that.
Finally, how about addressing the substantive question?
I love the lies the ignorant tell themselves instead of admitting their ignorance.
Excellent link to that federalist paper...
"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a **general phrase**, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. " ( .... exactly what they do .... )
"The ***objects*** of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are 'their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '"
"But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and (disregarding the specifications) which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves"
As-if being but a phrase from the taxation clause wasn't a dead give-away or that the term 'United States', 'States' and 'The people' weren't used exclusively for Federal, State & people.
I'd never read that before. Just the obviously blatant manipulation of pretending there was a "general welfare" clause in what is obviously a taxing clause for the national government was the bottom line for me.
And thanks to JesseAZ doing the proper research this can now be settled entirely/completely once and for all.
THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS A 'GENERAL WELFARE' CLAUSE.
This has been discussed since the FP was written. But dems like shrike do their best to put forth a living document standard.
The general welfare clause does not trump the bill of rights. Jesus H Christ.
...if there was even such thing. It's the taxation clause "for the general welfare of the United States" (the very Name of the Union Government) the taxation is for.
The manipulation and deception to even tout a "general welfare" clause is absurd. It's amazing how far Nazi-indoctrination has gone.
Oh fuck of with your Nazi B/S,
I did not restrict my comment to the general welfare clause, but I did note how its interpretation has changed.
Yes. Based on being ignorant. Words abd powers don't magically change because democrats want them to. And you won't find a single court who has evoked the general welfare clause to authorize a government power. What you do find is ignorant leftists claim it gives the federal government broad powers. So eve. Your defense of its use is purely narrative.
As usual you show you know fuck all about actual law.
As judges over decades have confirmed, because the Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare it can enact legislation or engage in activities for the general welfare. Indeed, it would be strange if it could not.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to [...] provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States"
This makes no sense if you deny Congress the power to provide for the general welfare, after they've laid and collected taxes; and courts have generally deferred to Congress on what constitutes general welfare.
What makes no sense is pretending you can VOID and write whatever Power you want under the non-existing disguise of 'general welfare' (purposely truncating the target noun/object) "of". Why in the world would there be enumerated powers or a bill of rights if 'general welfare' could just sum the whole thing up as a "whatever Congress says goes" ... under the notion of general welfare????
That's is completely stupid. Or how about reading the 10th and pretending the 'United States' is actual an object of the public?
The powers not delegated to the 'public' by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people??? WTF? Stupid.
EVERYWHERE and I mean EVERYWHERE the *Name* 'United States' in the US Constitution is the federal government as we call it today. The Union of States government with the *Name* -------------------> United States. (Well duh......)
Reading all of the Constitution makes that blatantly obvious in all of it's 85-uses of the term. 'States' means each State in the Union and 'the people' is the Individuals.
So where might I ask do you by any legitimate claim get to pretend in one specific clause (the taxation clause) does the term 'United States' all the sudden change from an object of the Union of States Government named the United States to the public??????
Your are completely F.O.S. and the dirty manipulation and deceit game you're playing is as obvious as day.
It's a taxation power to maintain the general welfare of the US Government. It's not a grant of power that voids the whole document you dipsh*t.
And no. An honorable Supreme Court will not manipulate BS like that.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution 'has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.'"
"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."
reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
Nor did I say otherwise.
I am not so cretinous as to believe that by definition when the Federal government says the scientific data are this, and some private citizen says they’re not, the citizen is right.
?!!
Oh wait, I just got trolled. Fuck, nice job, carry on.
The Twit population has fallen since Musky joined the girl-bulliers, bought the monkey cage and reversed things. In Nazi Germany, government contractor ban YOU!
antisX needs an exit tax confiscating all assets of anyone leaving the platform. It's only Christian!
Anything that is unconstitutional for government to do directly is also unconstitutional for government officials to do indirectly through jawboning or threats of government "action" or "investigation" or "regulation." Since 99% of the current Code of Federal Regulations are unconstitutional and were at the time they were enacted that probably won't deter them from this egregious abuse of power, but at least the courts could put them on notice and perhaps even curb some of the recent attempts.
I agree that the government cannot do indirectly what it may not do directly, but there is still a lot of open water between "encourage" and "pressure". Anything the government does in this area has the potential for being coercive, but completely gagging the peoples' elected government in fear it might be or be perceived to be coercive doesn't seem like a reasonable place to draw the line to me.
Power corrupts.
As I commented on the previous incarnation of this post, the subject of the "debate" is not clear, nor is the purpose of the question!
"The making of national internet policy was hindered rather than helped ..."
Taken literally the Federal government has no business whatsoever even trying to make a "national internet policy" in the first place except, perhaps, the default position under the Bill of Rights of minding their own damned business and leaving the internet to take care of itself. Even the Section 230 provisions to protect platform operators may have gone too far although I agree with the sentiment in general that content posted by others without the editorial capacity of the platform administrators should not be actionable.
Government's sellf-appointed and concealed role as Distorter of Internet Information is the problem here.
Government officials who detect a documented situation in which misinformation or disinformation has caused harm to the public should be posting their responses to their responses to that information online, with their real names and titles. Throughout the pandemic they relied on concealment, which permitted them to engage in the very type of distortion they claim to prevent.
The Government's new role of Secret Censor is a cancer on democracy and has produced major erosions of the 1st and 4th Amendments. It has also encouraged and cultivated the rise of pervasive conspiratorialism throughout US society.
What federal government role? They are prohibited from having a role in censorship, by the First Amendment.