![]() ![]() In 2019, Richard Stengel, a former managing editor of Time magazine and undersecretary of state in the Obama administration, proposed a law to ban hate speech, writing that his diplomatic experience and the rise of social media had convinced him to favor a more limited interpretation of the First Amendment. Mainstream Washington became more comfortable with clamping down on speech that seemed to endanger domestic stability or the national interest. leaders largely applauded the democratic potential of unfettered speech, with Barack Obama pledging to support “open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard” in a May 2011 speech about the Arab Spring.īut a commitment to absolute openness started to look different to many leaders - more like a threat to democracy - once social media networks became vectors of populist discontent inside the U.S. as well, as leaders have increasingly come to view unfettered online discussion as dangerous.Ī decade ago, when social media fueled unrest in the Middle East, U.S. French President Emmanuel Macron, in private remarks yesterday to mayors that were reviewed by POLITICO, floated the idea of cutting off access to social media networks to curb riots in France.Īnd despite yesterday’s ruling, the ubiquity and anarchy of the internet have already strained commitments to free expression within the U.S. ![]() is an outlier in its commitment to the free flow of information. How can national laws effectively police speech on global communications networks? And when national governments, individual users and social media platforms clash in cyberspace, whose rules will prevail?Įven among its closest allies, the U.S. (Jaffer acknowledged it was “at least possible” that the government overstepped its bounds, but suggested that the judge’s order was too broad to stand as is.) ![]() “The constitutional lines here are very blurry,” Jameel Jaffer, director of Columbia’s Knight First Amendment Institute, wrote in an email. Whether the ruling stands in its present form, it offers a reminder that broader questions about the laws and norms that will govern the future of online expression remain unsettled. The Trump appointee’s ruling found that the Biden administration’s efforts to police online discussion of the coronavirus were likely unconstitutional, in line with Republican arguments that the government overreached in its clampdown on Covid-19 misinformation. He issued an injunction that forbids some agencies and more than three dozen government officials - by name - from reaching out to platforms. and - in an era of global communications networks - worldwide.ĭoughty handed conservative free-speech advocates an Independence Day gift yesterday with a sharply worded ruling that limits government officials’ power to lobby social media companies to take down content. But one thing is certain: Judge Terry Doughty just reminded everyone how little agreement there is on the line between protected speech and sanctionable misinformation, both in the U.S. It’s not clear whether his ruling will be appealed, or whether it will ultimately hold up. The federal judge who slapped down the White House’s social media interventions yesterday triggered a lot of consternation, and quite a few victory laps. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |