The debate continues as to whether or not we should have free speech. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." Well, there you have it. Plain as day. But ... it's not. First, there are not a small number of people who are willing to discard that rule. Time to amend the Amendments. Beyond that, the rule is only in regard to Congress. There is nothing there preventing private organizations from abridging free speech. And we see it all the time, from requiring silence in a library to laws like Texas's "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace" kinds of laws. We all know that we have free speech, but it's illegal to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for fun. Free speech is legal and protected, but it is still abridged. However, the current debate is around social media in general and Twitter in particular. If Twitter's "free speech" platform allows for actual free speech, we're going to have all kinds of hate going on.
So we already have some problems with free speech. Congress can't limit it, but who can? The second is it's not actually free. So how do we determine what speech is not free? And who does get to limit it? We complain loudly if the government limits free speech specifically because of the First Amendment, but anyone who has reading comprehension will admit that the First Amendment does not preclude private organizations from limiting free speech. So what kinds of speech should be limited? Well, we'll all agree that incitement, hate speech, misinformation, and those kinds of things should be. And now we run into another problem. What constitutes those things? A misunderstood or malformed comment could be incitement for a listening group. A joke between two people can be perceived as hate by a third party. One person's misinformation is another person's scientific paper. It's all very relative. In some countries "illegal speech" includes insulting the government or the state religion. I say, "The Bible says that homosexual behavior is against nature" and it will be called "hate speech" even though 1) it's a quote from a text, 2) it is part of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and 3) there is no hate involved. But some will see it as incitement, hate, and misinformation. On the other hand, how will we determine what constitutes "misinformation," for instance, if we can't discuss the information?
All of these problems are significant and none of them have easy answers despite all the claims of those ready and willing to blithely abridge free speech on their own whim. Twitter will become a cesspool of commentary if free speech is unabridged. Why? It's not because of unabridged free speech. It's because of people. It's because Person A over here is unaware that Comment 1 will offend Person B. Worse, Person C doesn't care if Comment 2 offends Person D. And, of course, there are sadists who look forward to offending as many people as they can. My point is not that all speech is good speech. My point is that humans are sinners at the core and there isn't a human being on the planet that will not offend someone at some time with their "hate speech" or "misinformation." The problem is that we, as a culture, are overly sensitive and overly sensitized. The problem is that social media is designed to aggravate. They actually try to do that. It makes for more interaction, thus more readership, and thus more income. The problem is that social media provides a platform for people to be foolish, ignorant, mean, unkind, and positively evil without consequences. And since all that is true, limiting free speech on Twitter (or anywhere else) won't solve the problem. Conversely, since all that is true, allowing free speech on principle will simply result in the cockroaches coming out to feed.
It's a real problem. There really are haters and inciters out there. There really are liars intent on spreading lies, euphemistically termed "misinformation." There are bad people out there. Unfortunately, our technology serves to enable them, to provide them fertile soil in which to grow, like weeds, without consequences or accountability. Before this technology was available people were forced to say things to your face and that could have repurcussions, but no longer. And blocking free speech on Twitter won't fix that. The answer isn't in the platforms. It's in changed perceptions and changed people, something our technology doesn't provide. But we know Who does.
8 comments:
I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to mention the distinction between government abridgement of free speech and private abridgement.
Some of your newer readers would be aghast to know that you abridge the comments of Dan (which I whole-heartedly endorse). But this being a private (or semi-private?) blog platform, you have the right to filter in or filter out anything you deem apropriate. You are the gate keeper. But who gate-keeps you?
As we often say, "Only in America" could this thing or that thing happen. Just when you think you've seen it all, something comes up (I'm thinking the new mis/dis information governance board) that broadens the chasm of separation.
And look! I didn't censor you at all! :)
One serious concern I have for our country these days is that people don't seem to think. Obviously private organizations have the right to allow or disallow what they deem appropriate. We've all seen, "No shoes, no shirt, no service." So the Right is miffed that the current Twitter gags those they don't like and the Left is miffed that the new Twitter might not and no one is thinking ... that it's perfectly legal and even expected.
While I agree that Twitter does have (as a private company) the ability to choose the content that it allows, I'm not sure that's the problem for conservatives. I think most conservatives object the the lack of honesty and transparency that goes into the decisions. The fact that left leaning Twitter users get away with all sorts of violations of the TOS, while conservatives don't. Yet when those inconsistencies or violations are pointed out Twitter is less than honest and transparent in it's responses.
What's most telling is that Musk has been really upfront about wanting to have more speech allowed on Twitter rather than less, and the left is the side who objects to greater free speech, because they know that Twitter has disproportionately blocked conservative content and they've been perfectly happy with that.
Should Twitter have boundaries, yes. Should they prevent every single person from ever being offended, no. I've seen way more black liberals call black conservatives some term that ends in i###r, than I've ever seen white racists use the term. But somehow that's cool with the left.
I think the objection to the censorship of Left-leaning organizations like Twitter is based on the practice that has always been employed. Step 1: Determine that we disagree. Step 2: Give it a name that obviously marks it as offensive (because it IS offensive to us). Step 3: Stop discussing it. Ignore logic or discourse; use the label.
So we have labels like "hate" and "homophobic" and "transphobic" and, in so many cases of late, "misinformation" that get applied leaving no room for discussion or debate. Especially when the "misinformation" turns out to be absolutely true.
That's exactly the process. As long as you can give something a bad enough label, hide all the details, while publicizing who is responsible for the evil, you've got a pretty good system. Until you rile up someone who has the ability to take over...
I also think it's related to how people process offense. When I'm offended, my first impulse is to remove myself from whatever offended me (block or mute on social media, moderate on my blog). Many on the left feel like the appropriate response is to either put the hammer down on whoever offended them, and/or impose offense on the person who offended them. Fundamentally, I think that represents a huge gap in how we respond. I was offended by the NAZI march in Skokie IL, but I understand and support their freedom to march. I think that when we try to drown out someone who offends us, we end up drawing more attention to them and actually validating them to some degree. (Any time counter protesters show up it seems like things get worse)
Who knows, maybe we're offended sometimes because we don't want to admit that we're wrong.
How much of this "I'm offended" problem in society today a problem linked to "I'm the important one here"? (Rhetorical question.)
I'm not sure with out extensive scientific studies, but I'd put forth the WAG that it's really close to 100%.
Post a Comment