social media platforms present the same
issues that we have been grappling with
with respect to older media but
throughout human history every time a
new medium of communication comes along
many people including many government
officials become very exercised about
the new power and the allegedly new
harms that are posed so we went through
this when radio was invented when the
telephone was invented when television
was invented when the world wide web
came to people's attention and in fact I
have read that when the printing press
was invented and when papyrus was
invented there were similar eruptions of
fear about this great new power to
distribute information and the harm that
can be done through information and
disinformation so I think it's really
important for us to have historic
humility and not see what we're what
we're going through now is inherently
different and more dangerous than the
past and I think that the same
fundamental principles that have applied
to other media should apply to social
media as well first of all as private
sector entities social media companies
have absolutely no legal obligation to
respect First Amendment rights free
speech rights for anybody else so just
as I have no right to participate in
your wonderful film and I have no right
to have an op-ed in the New York Times I
have no right to have my post displayed
on Facebook or Twitter and so forth
moreover those companies have their own
First Amendment rights to make their own
editorial decisions about what
expression they are going to allow on
their platform and what they're not
going to allow is somebody who defend
free speech right
for media company so along with other
companies would oppose government
restriction on the ability of these
companies to decide what they will air
and what they will not air however I
will raise my voice to urge these
companies to adhere as closely as as
feasible to the same basic standards
that are reflected in the First
Amendment because I think that for all
of the potential damage that can be done
by various kinds of online
communications including disinformation
and so-called fake news and political
ads and so forth that far more harm is
done when we empower these largely
unaccountable private sector you know
really powerful entities to pick and
choose what expression is going to be
aired and what will not be aired and
that danger is especially great when we
are talking about political speech the
Supreme Court has consistently said
throughout history of all expression
that is important in our system of
government by far the most important is
speech about public affairs speech about
politics We the People to quote the
opening words of our Constitution we
wield sovereign power but how can we do
that responsibly or effectively if we do
not have access full access to
information about those who are running
for office those who are seeking our
votes those who are making public policy
decisions most of the time when people
advocate censorship beyond the emergency
situation in which First Amendment law
allows speech to be censored most of the
part-time people talk about the harm
that speech can cause whether it be
dissin formation / fake news or whether
it be hate speech or whether it be
terrorist content and I agree speech
have an enormous capacity to do harm as
well as an enormous capacity to do good
we protect it precisely because it is so
powerful but the argument 99.9 percent
of the time starts and ends with the
potential harm of free speech those who
advocate censorship never examine
whether censorship is going to be
effective in addressing redressing
reducing the harm they never address
whether censorship to the contrary is
going to do more harm than good and
every situation that I'm aware of
censorship actually ends up being
ineffective in addressing the harms at
stake at best or counterproductive at
worse
so disinformation well are we going to
say that empowering mark zuckerberg and
the other Titans of Silicon Valley to
decide that certain speech is untrue is
that actually going to solve our
political problems I think to the
contrary that is as threatening to
democracy as it is to individual freedom
likewise with respect to so-called hate
speech that conveys discriminatory ideas
against traditionally marginalized or
excluded groups every hate speech law
around the world to this day is
disproportional and Forrest consistently
against the very minority groups who are
hoped to be protected and we shouldn't
be surprised at that once you have these
discretionary standards what is hate
speech
what is disinformation no two
individuals can agree on such inherently
subjective concepts and so by definition
those who wield power are going to wield
their discretion in ways that
predictably are going to perpetuate
their power and not empower those who
have traditionally been silenced or
marginalized
