America was once seen as the home of the free internet. That era is now over.
Activity tagged "free speech"
Finally, most of the attention people have given to the announcement has focused on the plan to end the fact-checking program, with a lot of people freaking out about it. I even had someone tell me on Bluesky that Meta ending its fact-checking program was an “existential threat” to truth. And that’s nonsense. The reality is that fact-checking has always been a weak and ineffective band-aid to larger issues. We called this out in the wake of the 2016 election. .... So, if a lot of the functional policy changes here are actually more reasonable, what’s so bad about this? Well, first off, the framing of it all. Zuckerberg is trying to get away with the Elon Musk playbook of pretending this is all about free speech.
"The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritising free speech," said Mark Zuckerberg.
Doublespeak.
As I wrote the other day:
Elon Musk and the right’s war on Wikipedia
The world's richest man has joined a growing chorus of right-wing voices attacking Wikipedia as part of an intensifying campaign against free and open access information.
I’ve been banging the drum about the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law for a long time now, and one has just been proposed. Call your Congresspeople!
More on the bill from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
test print. 9x12”
The drumbeat of legal threats signals a potentially ominous trend for journalists during Trump’s second term in office. Litigation is costly and time-consuming. Most news organizations will look to settle rather than face months—more likely years—of discovery and depositions, plus significant legal fees.
“It is both conscious and unconscious. Journalists at smaller outlets know very well that the costs for their organization to defend themselves could mean bankruptcy. Even journalists at larger outlets don’t want to burden themselves or their employees with lawsuits. It puts another layer of influence into the journalistic process,” [Anne Champion] said.
Perhaps the CJR editors decided it went without saying, but it feels worth mentioning that — if Trump’s appointments go as planned — he will have the entire judicial branch to bring to bear on journalists, not just his wacky lawyer neighbor.
silver lining: it was awfully thoughtful of all these boston college administrations to draw the attention of a group of young, energetic, politically active students to last year's "tent ordinance" that cruelly targets the unhoused and is now being used to crack down on speech
Coercive force will not make anybody happy because it will not accomplish anyone's goals, even those who most want to see the protesters gone.
it is extremely funny to me that a lot of the people who want to slash or repeal Section 230 are the same people condemning NPR's Katherine Maher for her past comments they think are "anti-First Amendment"
in those comments she is actually describing the free speech protections afforded by Section 230 (although Rufo et al have ignored where she said those protections were "very important" and instead spun her comments as though she was criticizing it)
slashing or repealing 230 is the real anti-free speech issue here; certainly not Maher's comments supporting it