Has the First Amendment become a hindrance to democracy?

[Swammerdami]

I'm afraid this opinion by Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine may be unpopular on a site named Talk (about) Free Thought, but neither Ms. Bazelon nor myself are opposed to free thought! To the contrary, we oppose the way America's First Amendment works to eliminate critical thinking.

The article is too good to attempt a summary, but here is a random excerpt:

The false story about Democrats plotting a coup spread through a typical feedback loop. Links from Fox News hosts and other right-wing figures aligned with Trump, like Bongino, often dominate the top links in Facebook’s News Feed for likes, comments and shares in the United States. Though Fox News is far smaller than Facebook, the social media platform has helped Fox attain the highest weekly reach, offline and online combined, of any single news source in the United States, according to a 2020 report by the Reuters Institute.

It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I'm afraid this opinion by Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine may be unpopular on a site named Talk (about) Free Thought, but neither Ms. Bazelon nor myself are opposed to free thought! To the contrary, we oppose the way America's First Amendment works to eliminate critical thinking.

The article is too good to attempt a summary, but here is a random excerpt:

The false story about Democrats plotting a coup spread through a typical feedback loop. Links from Fox News hosts and other right-wing figures aligned with Trump, like Bongino, often dominate the top links in Facebook’s News Feed for likes, comments and shares in the United States. Though Fox News is far smaller than Facebook, the social media platform has helped Fox attain the highest weekly reach, offline and online combined, of any single news source in the United States, according to a 2020 report by the Reuters Institute.

It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science.

Putin is exploiting the inherent weakness in democracy, as soon as you limit free speech in such a way that there is an official source of censorship, you create an official source of information. If you were to limit speech to "proven or eyewitness " information or some variation, you have created an official narrative because almost no information can be "proven". If you can cover up a crime even with a small degree of success, then you can limit the ability of the public to get any information at all.

The only minimal policy I can imagine affecting this feedback loop is massive transparency and criminal punishment for financial crimes along with systemic limits on power including wealth accumulation.

But that's not much of a policy proposal

 

[Tigers!]

I'm afraid this opinion by Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine may be unpopular on a site named Talk (about) Free Thought, but neither Ms. Bazelon nor myself are opposed to free thought! To the contrary, we oppose the way America's First Amendment works to eliminate critical thinking.

The article is too good to attempt a summary, but here is a random excerpt:

The false story about Democrats plotting a coup spread through a typical feedback loop. Links from Fox News hosts and other right-wing figures aligned with Trump, like Bongino, often dominate the top links in Facebook’s News Feed for likes, comments and shares in the United States. Though Fox News is far smaller than Facebook, the social media platform has helped Fox attain the highest weekly reach, offline and online combined, of any single news source in the United States, according to a 2020 report by the Reuters Institute.

It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science.

Why do you think or believe your 1st Amendment is an infringement to democracy?

I will point out that that 1st Amendment allows you to publish your critique.

 

[Elixir]

I'm afraid this opinion by Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine may be unpopular on a site named Talk (about) Free Thought, but neither Ms. Bazelon nor myself are opposed to free thought! To the contrary, we oppose the way America's First Amendment works to eliminate critical thinking.

The article is too good to attempt a summary, but here is a random excerpt:

The false story about Democrats plotting a coup spread through a typical feedback loop. Links from Fox News hosts and other right-wing figures aligned with Trump, like Bongino, often dominate the top links in Facebook’s News Feed for likes, comments and shares in the United States. Though Fox News is far smaller than Facebook, the social media platform has helped Fox attain the highest weekly reach, offline and online combined, of any single news source in the United States, according to a 2020 report by the Reuters Institute.

It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science.

Why do you think or believe your 1st Amendment is an infringement to democracy?

I will point out that that 1st Amendment allows you to publish your critique.

You miss the point.
I am not sure of the feasibility of regulating "lies", but I do feel that the intentional placement of dangerous misinformation into the public sphere needs to be curtailed somehow. Maybe it's a matter of labeling requirements. Maybe the algorithms that actively cultivate the growth of Q-Anon type echo chambers need to be examined.
Speech of any sort needs to be permitted, and IMO should be accompanied by information about its source. It's a pretty intractable problem, or someone would have come up with a solution to which few would object. But the damage being done to our environment, our economy and our society at large, is largely the product of malicious interests that have leveraged the fact of assumed "freedom" to mislead, deceive and misdirect the actions (incl votes) of the American public.

 

[Patooka]

People's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is a threat to democracy - for Americans.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean immunity from consequences either.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not the 1stA that's impinging critical thinking. It's our education. People THINK they're making critical thinking noises when they say, "Do your own research," when they really mean, "Carefully align with your chosen sources."

Jefferson did not like the 1stA, either. Felt that only the Truth should be protected. Which is when everyone else said, "Okay, How?"

 

[Elixir]

It's not the 1stA that's impinging critical thinking. It's our education. People THINK they're making critical thinking noises when they say, "Do your own research," when they really mean, "Carefully align with your chosen sources."

Jefferson did not like the 1stA, either. Felt that only the Truth should be protected. Which is when everyone else said, "Okay, How?"

ZACKLY!
The fact that the problem is difficult doesn't mean it should not be tackled, IMHO.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not the 1stA that's impinging critical thinking. It's our education. People THINK they're making critical thinking noises when they say, "Do your own research," when they really mean, "Carefully align with your chosen sources."

Jefferson did not like the 1stA, either. Felt that only the Truth should be protected. Which is when everyone else said, "Okay, How?"

ZACKLY!
The fact that the problem is difficult doesn't mean it should not be tackled, IMHO.

I would agree. But to me, the problem is not "How?" as much as "Who?"

If there was a government office of determining factual content, everyone would be trying to get control of that. Purely to protect Da Truuf, of course, but control nevertheless.

 

[Elixir]

It's not the 1stA that's impinging critical thinking. It's our education. People THINK they're making critical thinking noises when they say, "Do your own research," when they really mean, "Carefully align with your chosen sources."

Jefferson did not like the 1stA, either. Felt that only the Truth should be protected. Which is when everyone else said, "Okay, How?"

ZACKLY!
The fact that the problem is difficult doesn't mean it should not be tackled, IMHO.

I would agree. But to me, the problem is not "How?" as much as "Who?"

If there was a government office of determining factual content, everyone would be trying to get control of that. Purely to protect Da Truuf, of course, but control nevertheless.

Right - that's the intractability part.
But there is truth out there, if not Truth. I think the scientific method is something that is almost universally agreed upon as a means for converging upon, if not determining, what is true. Maybe there's a starting point in there somewhere?

 

[ZiprHead]

From my reading about newspapers from the past, unethical journalism seems to have been persistent throughout, at least, US journalism. There's always been muckrakers and propagandists. I think cable tv and internet in almost everyone's homes has just seemed to make it more prominent.

 

[Politesse]

Assigning the federal governement to assign truth values is not a means to avoid mistruths, only the endorsement of a preferred source of mistruths.

 

[Elixir]

Assigning the federal governement to assign truth values is not a means to avoid mistruths, only the endorsement of a preferred source of mistruths.

I don't believe anyone was advocating that.
Personally, I was thinking of an international consortium of scientists... even then, the vetting process could be corrupted. It's not an easy issue, but an important one.

 

[Trausti]

So the New York Times is concerned about the spread of misinformation? THAT New York Times? Is this a joke?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Putting and keeping social media companies in the legislative hot seat might incentivize them into updating their Terms and Conditions. Of course the government could not make this a part of the language but easing up on the talk of say a social media tax (on the company and possibly the end user) should they start to take a more responsible approach with their platforms might just tame the animals within.

 

[ZiprHead]

So the New York Times is concerned about the spread of misinformation? THAT New York Times? Is this a joke?

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

 

[Trausti]

Putting and keeping social media companies in the legislative hot seat might incentivize them into updating their Terms and Conditions. Of course the government could not make this a part of the language but easing up on the talk of say a social media tax (on the company and possibly the end user) should they start to take a more responsible approach with their platforms might just tame the animals within.

If social media companies want to be treated as public forums, they should act like public forums. If they want to regulate content, then treat them like publishers. That’s the issue.

 

[Politesse]

Assigning the federal governement to assign truth values is not a means to avoid mistruths, only the endorsement of a preferred source of mistruths.

I don't believe anyone was advocating that.
Personally, I was thinking of an international consortium of scientists... even then, the vetting process could be corrupted. It's not an easy issue, but an important one.

If the federal government isn't involved, then it isn't a First Amendment issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

Putting and keeping social media companies in the legislative hot seat might incentivize them into updating their Terms and Conditions. Of course the government could not make this a part of the language but easing up on the talk of say a social media tax (on the company and possibly the end user) should they start to take a more responsible approach with their platforms might just tame the animals within.

By "a more responsible approach", did you mean "a more pro-party-currently-in-power approach"? (I'm only asking because that's what the party-currently-in-power will mean by it.)

 

[Derec]

Quite the contrary!
Given that in Europe people can be prosecuted for expressing political opinions, for example opinions critical of Islam and Islamic mass migration into Europe, robust protections for free speech are more important than ever.

I would say, instead of restricting free speech we need to strengthen it. For example by banning people getting fired for expressing opinions on their own time (as opposed to while at work).

 

[Elixir]

Assigning the federal governement to assign truth values is not a means to avoid mistruths, only the endorsement of a preferred source of mistruths.

I don't believe anyone was advocating that.
Personally, I was thinking of an international consortium of scientists... even then, the vetting process could be corrupted. It's not an easy issue, but an important one.

If the federal government isn't involved, then it isn't a First Amendment issue.

It's a global issue.