As a very unproductive member of a disinformation task force at one time I think a lot of the force of what Shellenberger is saying is confusion between censoring hate speech and removing disinformation. Disinformation is defined as someone deliberately lying about the piece of "news" they have posted and then relying on social media feeds without journalistic standards to carry it far and wide. Even Fox News relentlessly piling on every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is encouraging their viewers to hate immigrants and live in an apocalyptic parallel universe in general but is not spreading disinformation in that sense. Something like the lab-leak theory can become classified as disinformation because of its easy potential to become hate speech not because anyone knows if it is true or false.
The scary part is that it seems that the rights enshrined by the First Amendment are now conditional. Nobody is questioning that Trump" lying" about election results is somehow illegal. Nobody is questioning that gag orders on Trump by various judges without any specific evidence of alleged juror intimidation is somehow allowable. The media, the legal associations and academia are in the tank.
I have followed the Supreme Court since I was in college in the late ‘70s, and have been a lawyer for 41 years. I understand that the Supreme Court argument went badly, but this Court is not about to gut the first amendment. They may try to duck the issue with a ruling on standing. They may announce a standard under which government may provide contrary information to a social media company. But they are not going to permit censorship, or even censorship light. Any “recommendation” of government with even a hint of coercion will be barred. These Justices have a track record on the First Amendment, and I don’t see them abandoning it.
Glenn, your introductory summation nails it. I've never in my life seen such a concerted effort to do end-runs around the first amendment by making up terms like 'misinformation, 'disinformation' and 'hate speech', and then pretending that these are somehow NOT protected by the first amendment. In fact, the first amendment is precisely INTENDED to protect such speech.
And a possibly paywalled treat for everyone: NYT story on the Black guy from Queens who learned how to game University Challenge https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/07/business/uk-university-challenge-brandon-blackwell.html
As a very unproductive member of a disinformation task force at one time I think a lot of the force of what Shellenberger is saying is confusion between censoring hate speech and removing disinformation. Disinformation is defined as someone deliberately lying about the piece of "news" they have posted and then relying on social media feeds without journalistic standards to carry it far and wide. Even Fox News relentlessly piling on every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is encouraging their viewers to hate immigrants and live in an apocalyptic parallel universe in general but is not spreading disinformation in that sense. Something like the lab-leak theory can become classified as disinformation because of its easy potential to become hate speech not because anyone knows if it is true or false.
The scary part is that it seems that the rights enshrined by the First Amendment are now conditional. Nobody is questioning that Trump" lying" about election results is somehow illegal. Nobody is questioning that gag orders on Trump by various judges without any specific evidence of alleged juror intimidation is somehow allowable. The media, the legal associations and academia are in the tank.
I have followed the Supreme Court since I was in college in the late ‘70s, and have been a lawyer for 41 years. I understand that the Supreme Court argument went badly, but this Court is not about to gut the first amendment. They may try to duck the issue with a ruling on standing. They may announce a standard under which government may provide contrary information to a social media company. But they are not going to permit censorship, or even censorship light. Any “recommendation” of government with even a hint of coercion will be barred. These Justices have a track record on the First Amendment, and I don’t see them abandoning it.
This is just getting started, and you better be prepared.
With 42 out of 50 states not requiring photo ID to vote and 70% of votes cast by mail, the Leftwaffe is on a roll.
Look to Scotland's "Hate Speech" and America's "Covid Misinformation" rules for the future of all this.
Glenn, your introductory summation nails it. I've never in my life seen such a concerted effort to do end-runs around the first amendment by making up terms like 'misinformation, 'disinformation' and 'hate speech', and then pretending that these are somehow NOT protected by the first amendment. In fact, the first amendment is precisely INTENDED to protect such speech.