Twitter's online speech norms were created and shaped by lawyers who were deeply knowledgeable of existing First Amendment case law in the U.S. It feels like journalists now want platforms to intentionally deviate from that: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1598-1670_Online.pdf … https://twitter.com/TonyRomm/status/1029827909987520512 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dangillmor
Absolutely. But I think the pushback is because ppl sense we’re in a new era and playing catch up. Expanding definition of 1A and weaponization of discourse is a new scale of challenge.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
it's not an expanding definition -- speech was not "less free" before
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Dan is right but I was referring to the expansionist 1A doctrine where money, consumer packaging, data, etc. = speech. If "everything" is speech at some point there's a threat to what makes specific kinds of speech important. (See this 84 pg. paper
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2921745 …)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Corporations are just groups of people though. And you are referring for example to Citizens United v FEC, which overturned a law established in 2002... hard to justify that 1A was expansionist when attempts to limit 1A happened so recently
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shillycrypto @camholm and
By your logic, expansionism = "the court upheld 1A in the face of recent attempts to regulate it I didn't like" that's not expansionism buddy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It’s a 40+ year phenomenon (see the article). Not all “speech” is created equal and just because it’s hard doesn’t mean platforms can shirk their duty to elevate discourse in a normative way. The 1A is a starting point but insufficient in this arena.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @camholm @shillycrypto and
Put another way: a marketplace of ideas with Alex Jones in it is a failed market. It’s not a grocery store with bread of different ideologies; it’s one where one loaf is actually poison.
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes
Also, why do libel laws and the actual malice standard not address the Alex Jones issue?
-
-
I’m all for applying existing remedies in the legal realm. But those statutes are also (appropriately) very narrowly tailored. I think we’d agree that much of the harm to discourse happens beneath that high bar even if a suit bore fruit in that one case.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.