The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Kyle Langvardt, "Can the First Amendment Scale?"
Still more from the free speech and social media platforms symposium in the first issue of our Journal of Free Speech Law; you can read the whole article (by Kyle Langvardt, Nebraska) here, but here's the abstract:
American judges today preside over a laissez-faire regime of "editorial discretion" for private media entities. That approach promotes freedom of speech when applied to entities such as newspapers that handle content at a relatively small scale. But applied to entities such as Facebook that handle millions of items of third-party content a day, the laissez-faire approach threatens free speech by concentrating unchecked censorial power in the hands of a few companies. That outcome is probably avoidable, but only at the price of difficult transformations in First Amendment law that seem to carry their own significant risks. These changes will include a weakening in the editorial concept and a diminished role for the judiciary in defining the public law of free speech.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
On my FB page I published links to some of the claims made by Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan. I also agreed with her that I believed that the genes of the coronavirus had been malevolently edited for gain in function.
Zuckerberg's censors immediately came along and scolded me and printed a snopesy refutation on my page, and later they simply removed my Dr. Yan material. Zuckerberg has too much power and too many algorithms, needs to be reined in.
And yet you're here repeating your claims - completely free from FB's restrictions.
Funny how that works.....
FB is a utility with 2.7 billion monthly users. No comparison with this blog seen by hundreds.
Exactly. Facebook is not the internet. Even if you're banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, there are still tens of thousands of places to spread your "information".
There are also tens of thousands of street corners.
You're comparing publishing on a street corner to Facebook? If I could, I'd reach out to everyone in the whole world. How do you do that from a street corner? Your objection to the case I was trying to make descended from illogical to absurd.
The case you are trying to make seems to be that Facebook et al. is somehow obligated to broadcast your message to the whole world. I find that absurd.
That's like saying because my local public access station only has a few hundred viewers, CBS is obligated to give me free ad time during the Superbowl
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, such a lame analogy.
Platforms like FB, Twitter, and YT are gigantic owners of the marketplace of ideas...and getting more and more exclusive. I think even the libertarians are squirming when voices like Donald Trump, Alex Berenson, and Marjorie Taylor Green are banned.
"Squirming" is one thing, calling for government regulation is a very different thing. If the problem is the platforms having too much power I don't see how giving the government even more power is a good solution.
Facebook is laboring under the threats from government to abolish section 230, potentially costing them tens to hundrdeds of billions in stock valuation (due to dragging the industry under the thumb of suing lawyers, curious that, as every other industry already is, with their market valuations correspondingly lower as "mature" industries.)
It is not making free decisions with respect to censorship. Indeed, Mr. Facebook said he would specifically not censor politicians, and got screamed at by senators and others, who hold this Sword of D(ictators) over him.
The question for Eugene is whether any human can regulate himself? The answer is, no. The lockdown and fake panic enriched the tech billionaires $1.7 trillion in 2020. Any remark threatening that will not be tolerated.
Once regulation is deemed necessary, others must do it, not the party to be regulated.
If Eugene were not just an idiot savant bookworm, he would know that about people.
David, you ought to read EV's bio. He's a brain. Then read his treatise about freedom of speech: One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and "Cyberstalking."
Eugene Volokh and Aaron Caplan [https://hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Caplan-64.3.pdf] saved me from getting jailed for publishing internet exposés about a nasty old misanthropic hag who abused NC stalking laws to settle scores. Those two men are my heroes.