It has become depressingly common to read unrelenting attacks on free speech in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The anti-free speech movement has been embraced by Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, as well as academics who now claim “China was right” on censorship. However, a Time magazine column by national correspondent Charlotte Alter was still shocking in how mainstream anti-free speech views have become. Alter denounces free speech as basically a white man’s “obsession.”
What is most striking about the column is Alter’s apparent confusion over why anyone like Musk would even care about the free speech of others. She suggests that Musk is actually immoral for spending money to restore free speech rather than on social welfare or justice issues.
She suggests that supporting free speech is some disgusting extravagance like buying Fabergé eggs.
“Why does Musk care so much about this? Why would a guy who has pushed the boundaries of electric-vehicle manufacturing and plumbed the limits of commercial space flight care about who can say what on Twitter?”
The answer, not surprisingly, is about race and privilege. Alter cites Jason Goldman, who was an early figure shaping the Twitter censorship policies before he joined the Obama administration. Goldman declared, “free speech has become an obsession of the mostly white, male members of the tech elite” who “would rather go back to the way things were.”
Alter also cites professor of communication at Stanford University Fred Turner who explains that free speech is just “a dominant obsession with the most elite… [and] seems to be much more of an obsession among men.”
In arguing in favor of censorship, Alter engages in a heavy use of historical revisionism, claiming that
“‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.”
It is also lost on me.
Censorship has always been based on the notion that the underlying speech was false or harmful. Calling it “disinformation” does not materially change the motivation or the impact. What Alter calls a “Tech Bro obsession” was the obsession of the Framers.
Alter is confusing free speech values with the rationale for the First Amendment. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.
The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.
Key free speech figures practiced what they preached in challenging friends and foes alike. After playing a critical role with our independence, Thomas Paine did nothing but irritate the Framers with his words, including John Adams, who called him a “crapulous mass.”
Yet, free speech was a defining value for the framers (despite Adams’ later attacks on the right). It was viewed as the very growth plate of democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated in a letter on July 9, 1722: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”
The same anti-free speech voices were heard back then as citizens were told to fear free speech. It was viewed as a Siren’s call for tyranny. Franklin stated:
“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.”
Yet, Alter assures readers that this is just due to a lack of knowledge by Musk and a misunderstanding of why censorship is a natural and good thing:
“Tech titans often have a different understanding of speech than the rest of the world because most trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and a lack of a humanities education might make them less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech.”
It appears that Alter’s humanities education in college allows her to see “nuances” that escape the rest of us, including some of us who are not “trained as engineers.”
Just for the record, Alter has a degree in English Language and Literature/Letters (Harvard). Musk has his undergraduate degrees not in engineering but a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics (both from the University of Pennsylvania). None of these degrees bestow any basis for claiming superior knowledge of constitutional law or human rights.
Indeed, no degree offers such determinative authority. Some of the most anti-free speech figures in our history have law degrees. A degree guarantees neither wisdom nor understanding. Many of the Framers were not legally trained but they had an innate sense and commitment to free speech.
James Madison warned us to be more on guard against such nuanced arguments: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
As Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other media outlets align themselves with the anti-free speech movement, it is more important than ever for citizens to fight for this essential right. There is nothing nuanced in either this movement or its implications for this country.
“The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform.”
The Biden laptop wasn’t Russian disinformation. We know who lied with malice. The lab leak theory was not a hoax. It was and remains plausible.
So when they say the election wasn’t stolen, why should Dinesh D’Souza or anybody else believe them?
“ The Biden laptop wasn’t Russian disinformation. We know who lied with malice. The lab leak theory was not a hoax. It was and remains plausible.”
It was believed to be at the time it came up and it wasn’t until almost a year later that SOME aspects of the laptop mystery were true.
Not true.
There was no evidence of forgery.
The vast majority of the files have not been authenticated, and some of the files that were passed along by Giuliani have creation dates that postdate the laptop having been turned over to the FBI.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220413073629/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
Quoting the top line of your article: “Two experts confirm the veracity of thousands of emails, but say a thorough examination was stymied by missing data.”
My next question is, where you were you on the night Epstein was killed?
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.” Attributed by Evelyn Beatrice Hall to Voltaire
“ For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.”
That’s because they are right. Even Turley has admitted that it IS true. Turley the hypocrite uses speech controls too. He deletes racist rhetoric or offensive words and reserves the right to do so even though it’s protected speech. Turley doesn’t deny that the First Amendment does indeed only apply to the government.
The text of the First Amendment itself only prevents Congress (i.e., U.S. Congress) from making laws that restrict the freedom of speech. This protection is extended to the states, and to local governments, through the State Action Doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, under the State Action Doctrine, First Amendment restrictions traditionally do not extend to private parties, such as individuals or private companies. In other words, a private person or private company (such as a social media company) cannot violate your constitutional free speech rights, only the government can do so.
Republicans have for years used this very same argument when it comes to corporations or companies censoring their employee’s political speech. Or when they argue that money is free speech.
Social media platforms are often characterized as a digital public square. Yet, courts have repeatedly refused arguments that social media platforms are public forums subject to the First Amendment. This reasoning is justified because their networks are private, and merely hosting speech by others does not convert a private platform to a public forum. Only in limited cases have social media sites been found by courts to qualify as a public forum. For example, in a recent case, an appellate court held that the official Twitter page operated by then President Donald Trump was a designated public forum. As a result, government officials could not engage in viewpoint discrimination by blocking individuals from posting comments with critical views of the President and his policies. In contrast, a private person or organization’s social media page is not a public forum and is not protected by the First Amendment.
This is why Turley deletes racist or offensive rhetoric in his blog even though in a public forum it is protected speech that cannot be legally censored.
Too much wrong to comment on.
Pick one thing you think is wring and rebut it.
I have been rebutting your nonsense for hundreds of posts.
You virtually never defend yourself.
Regardless – you selective edited my reply. I did rebutt your post
John B. Say,
You have been poorly rebutting my comments. I have defended my points of view. Which reply did I allegedly edit? Are you posting as anonymous too?
We do not need many laws – such as laws regarding private censorship in a free market – because private censorship tends to be self destructive.
You can not escape the fact that censoring the NY Post story on the Biden laptop stinks to high heaven.
It is probably the single most damaging thing that the media has done – TO IT SELF.
Private media – such as WaPo and NYT have significantly damaged their credibility – which fundamentally is the product of news.
But it is worse with Social Media, they have shown they are politically corrupt and harmful to fundimental values of the country.
They have damaged their value – and they are responsible to shareholders for that.
We can fight over the law – which you are pretty clueless about.
Regardless, you are losing. People do not WANT what you are selling.
You say Twitter users can go elsewhere. They can. Or they can change Twitter – which is what is happening.
And the reason there is so much fear on the left is Twitter is just the first domino to fall.
I beleive that Musk really is making a wise business decision – that he is increasing the value of Twitter drastically by doing this.
If I am correct – Alphabet, Apple, FB will all follow.
They must. They can not harm their shareholders.
John B. Say,
“We do not need many laws – such as laws regarding private censorship in a free market – because private censorship tends to be self destructive.
You can not escape the fact that censoring the NY Post story on the Biden laptop stinks to high heaven.
It is probably the single most damaging thing that the media has done – TO IT SELF.
Private media – such as WaPo and NYT have significantly damaged their credibility – which fundamentally is the product of news.”
Censorship in the free market is entirely a choice not limited by the constitution in any form other than issues regarding fraud, and libel. and slander.
“We can fight over the law – which you are pretty clueless about.
Regardless, you are losing. People do not WANT what you are selling.”
That’s merely your opinion. As for the law, your only issue is that you read the law in the narrowest of interpretations to the point that it becomes illogical or useless. Elon Musk is not going to change Twitter that much. As it is with anything new. The excitement and expectations regarding speech on the platform will fade back into what twitter has always done. It’s better to wait and see if the changes you predict actually come true.
Serpentza, a fellow S. African who has a YouTube channel of that name and has long experience living in China, recently raised the possibility that Musk may have purchased Twitter for China. Twitter, for all its biases, apparently was properly labeling tweets from Chinese propaganda sources. If Musk has to choose between complete freedom of speech (including criticism of China), and maintaining chummy relations with China for business purposes, which way will he go?
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”
What is Freedom of Thought? Our discussion in our minds intended to be expressed to others in speech. The left is intent on thought control. Thought control (which is power) is what every Stalinist most desires.
Most of us think in words. Part of Orwell’s fundimental understanding of authoritarian regimes was grasping that controlling the meaning of words controlled peoples thought.
Like republicans banning discussion of CRT in schools or Universities? Or Disney being punished because it expressed criticism of a law? That is right up the authoritarian’s playbook.
You can not have Christ in his second coming allowed to speak, Come on Johnathan,please, you just can not have that.
I can’t say I’m surprised. Alter is a classic example of academic brainwashing, which has been going on since the 1930s at least. Orwell’s character, Winston Smith, realized that young women are the easiest led, as did Paul the Apostle. As for the First Amendment, remember that the Founders considered the Congress, which was forbidden from making laws restricting personal freedoms, was the representative of “We, the people.” They saw the possibility of Congress becoming subject to control by people with an agenda (sound familiar?) Remember that John Adams was a product of Puritan New England, and the Puritans were the last to believe in and advocate free speech – and freedom of thought for that matter. The First Amendment came out of Virginia, not New England and New York,
“[T]he Puritans were the last to believe in and advocate free speech – and freedom of thought for that matter.”
You are mistaken. They did not advocate for free speech; they banned it. They were not on principle against the union of church and state; they established a theocracy. (See, for example, the fate of Roger Williams.) Colonial Virginia was not much better.
The historical source of the Founders’ belief in free speech came from the Enlightenment thinker John Locke.
With his establishment of the unConstitutional “Alien and Sedition Acts,” Adams is not the role model for free speech. Madison and Jefferson are.
It is an insult to humanity that entities that thrive because of the freedom of the press would argue that anyone outside their small coterie of deranged yappers is not entitled to the freedom of the speech. And when I look back upon the history of Time and Newsweek, I see some glaring statements of idiocy, like when Time proclaimed Adolph Hitler their “Man of the Year”.
Even though I wasn’t alive when that happened, I still give them the right to make that proclamation. It was stupid. But they have an unlimited right to stupidity. And as long as they exercise their freedom to say it, I know exactly what I am looking at when I see their magazine.
Kill The Redcoats!
Kill The Russians!
After years of (largely) privileged millennial suppression, we finally have a real chink in the armor. I think their narcissism and that of those indoctrinating them honestly didn’t allow for this possibility. We must not stop pushing now. Prepare for even greater epic meltdowns and hostility on their part. The time to expose the lunacy of the modern left is right this second. They are losing support all over (not counting the ‘support’ they manufactured with chicanery), which was of course totally predictable to actual adults – it was bound to happen sooner or later – and we’ve got to keep it going.
Once again proving all the left has is the RACE CARD. It’s over. They overused it so much that NOBODY cares anymore.
It’s starting to look that way, Wen. Maybe Abe was right. They can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
What would the reaction be from anti free speech people be if the next administration shut THEM down using their philosophy? Just them.
I agree, Margot! I’m only being slightly tongue in cheek when I say that I’m against free speech – it should be illegal to espouse censorship.
They expect to be entrenched in power forever by eliminating dissent.
I find those calling for bans on free speech don’t have the critical thinking skills to defend their opinions from scrutiny.
We are each capable of deciding what we believe and what we don’t.
At this point, anything I hear from our corrupt government or its propaganda mouthpieces, like those mentioned above, I consider as “disinformation” until I find evidence it is not. It’s sad we have reached this point, but I am happy to see more citizens I talk to are waking up and deciding to think for themselves.
It’s not just free speech the leftist are against, but, they want total control to do as they please, while restricting others in all spheres of life. In short, they are for a totalitarian police state. So long as they control everything. They completely lack any self awareness, what so ever!
Free speech for me, but not for thee,
The idea that “tech titans” are obsessed with free speech seems particularly deranged in today’s environment. To me, it seems that tech titans and executives are instead obsessed with “content moderation” to control the narrative and please the Democratic Party. It took an outsider like Musk, who is not in fact a “tech titan”, to shake things up.
Truly depressing that “journalists” see free speech as racist and are so willing to be censured. I’m sure Time, WAPO and the NYT will be very willing to present their articles to a republican administrations Ministry of Truth.
So, the writers and editors at Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other liberal media are on a crusade to keep conservative voices down, while virtue-signaling that it’s their job to protect minorities and women from the “free speech” of white male supremacists. Meanwhile, you can bet that the next Democratic hoax, like Russiagate or Huntergate, will get full front-page coverage in all liberal rags, and no retraction when it’s exposed as bunko.
It’s an astoundingly unimaginable that we as a country are actually experiencing this: The anti-free speech movement being pushed by our government, big tech and the mainstream media. It’s unconscionable. This is beyond dangerous. We are in the middle of a civil war.. and it will get worse, much worse.
“The process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every predication made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.“
George Orwell (1984)
when the Son of the VP along with other family members can ride on Air Force 2 and do personal business deals with our enemies…you know Democrats NO LONGER CARE WHAT YOU THINK!
The Rule of Law in America is DEAD! DC is lost….Republicans need to cut 50% of Fed gov and move 40% of DC Fed Gov to the heartland
The socialists of 1930’s Germant….showed how propaganda wins power!
Democrats are copying this!
if you don’t vote Republican you HATE America
List of Constitutional Amendments Democrats are against 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26
I would be surprised that there are any Democrats against the 16th Amendment.