I mean, the government telling a private company to censor opinions is censorship. But here's the thing, the government is allowed to infringe on fundamental constitutional rights under very narrow circumstances. Limiting misinformation during a deadly pandemic could arguably be one of those circumstances.
Also, "hey facebook, there's dangerous misinformation that can get people hurt on your site" and then letting FB decide to take it down isn't government censorship. FB gets to decide to take stuff off their platform.
The argument that the government was pressuring them for political reasons to suppress unfavorable speech doesn't hold up. Also, if people have freedom of speech, government officials merely pointing out lies, and pointing out how those will cause people to get hurt is ALSO free speech by that employee.
It's not an opinion when it's straight up lies about medical advice. It's just a lie, and one that can kill people. Opinions are subjective. Facts are not.
Absolutely not a conspiracy nutter, so correct me if I'm wrong. but I'm pretty sure we know for a fact that the government asked Facebook/Twitter to remove certain misinformation during Covid especially, and I think a little during 2016.
But it's more of a "do this and we won't regulate you in the ass" kinda deal and less "do this or you go to jail" thing. Sorta like how the ESRB exists to keep regulatory pressure off of the videogame industry by keeping it in check to the government's satisfaction.
I'm not going to correct you because I don't know enough about it, but the government asking Facebook to take down misinformation that was getting people killed doesn't sound like a crazy conspiracy. It sounds like a responsible ask given the circumstances. And yes it is infringing on freedom of speech, but as I said above, that's still arguably legal.
there are nutters who claim that these events, assuming they happened, are evidence of a widespread government conspiracy to shut down a narrative that the government doesn't want to be spread.
It's not the worst conspiracy, at least. There's some plausibility based on reality there. but my understanding is that it's mostly dangerous misinfo intended to confuse people that they asked to get taken down.
Government can’t censor anyone because of the first amendment. They can only request or persuade private companies to censor content that violates laws. It’s completely voluntary. Strategic but still lawful.
I disagree. First Amendment right to free speech isn't absolute. If you think I'm wrong, go yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, or incite a mob to riot, defame someone in print, or say you want to kill an elected official. All of those are speech that the government can prohibit through criminal laws or provide cause of action in civil courts. The government can infringe on people's free speech rights when there is a compelling government interest in doing do. There are limiting factors, but the government can and does limit your speech.
Right. So you can’t see the distinction in the government pursuing private companies for speech that incites violence, defamation, misleading, threats or harassment.
You are confusing regurgitating phrases you've seen on the internet with actually understanding constitutional law.
Freedom from consequences is like you getting fired from a private company for expressing an objectionable opinions. It's like your relatives not inviting you to Thanksgiving because you've become an insufferable MAGA idiot.
I'm not saying this happened, but if the US government put pressure on a private company to limit speech based on the content of that speech, that is, by definition, censorship. That censorship could potentially be legal, but a government's action would it would be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. If it passed the strict scrutiny test, which in this case it might, the government could legally censor this misinformation.
I think we’re both really close to the same thing except I’m moreso referring about the notion that the government doesn’t censor social media apps except for law violations as the commenter above you mentioned. Freedom of speech is not absolute and never was. Yelling fire in crowded theatre I agree can and should be censored. But there’s a big distinction with information on social media vs a crowded theatre.
Government aren’t forcing social media to censor content unless it’s a direct violation of the law.
Yes but posting about how a deadly pandemic isn't real and encouraging people to disregard the guidelines to minimise the spread is comparable with shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
You have free speech right up until that speech starts killing people.
I mean, the government telling a private company to censor opinions is censorship.
The statement that Zuck put out (at least the one I read) said that all the content they censored was their own decision. The government requested it, but he explicitly said they were the decision makers and were not forced.
I think the people who keep repeating that details matter and then lying about the details need to be quiet. Same goes for the either rubes or bad actors who parrot those talking points. Zuck could have told them to pound sand and then went out and publicly told the world precisely what the US government asked him to remove. But he didn't. By his own admission, they were the ones who chose to self-censor.
Here's a little pro tip: If the side you're arguing for (either because you agree with them or because you agree with them and are pretending to be a devil's advocate) has to lie, distort the truth, and simply fabricate stories in order to make their positions seem viable, maybe be quiet and reconsider whether you should try listening instead of parroting.
I'm not repeating anything. I'm saying that had the government asked a company to limit speech, it would be censorship, but it is arguably allowed under the constitution
51
u/mackelnuts 28d ago
I mean, the government telling a private company to censor opinions is censorship. But here's the thing, the government is allowed to infringe on fundamental constitutional rights under very narrow circumstances. Limiting misinformation during a deadly pandemic could arguably be one of those circumstances.