There is a reason the headline says “free speech” not “Free Speech”, and it’s about the only thing correct in this unhinged Slate article by Special Snowflake Kate Klonick
https://twitter.com/LilMissRightie/status/768498006773624833
Twitter needs to move on from its “free speech” ideals: https://t.co/1D8HE6a1Jp pic.twitter.com/rz5gFhyJSw
— Slate (@Slate) August 24, 2016
Early last week, Twitter announced that it would be using new tools to curb hate speech and harassment on its site. The news came on the heels of atell-all report on BuzzFeed that chronicled how 10 years of dogmatic commitment to “free speech†combined with persistent mismanagement led to the popular social media app becoming “a honeypot for assholes.†Twitter’s former head of news, Vivian Schiller, told BuzzFeed, “The whole ‘free speech wing of the free speech party’ thing — that’s not a slogan, that’s deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company.†That ethos made it all the more difficult to regulate abuse on the site.
But absent from discussion is a more fundamental question: Should we be using the notion of “free speech†to understand online speech at all?
As a general matter, it’s important not to confuse the First Amendment with the broader notion of free speech. Free speech policy is about the First Amendment kind of like how Cheez Whiz is about dairy products: They are related, but fundamentally different. The First Amendment protects “free speech†by saying that the government cannot (with certain important exceptions) prevent you from speaking. But private individuals or corporations, like Twitter, are not covered by the First Amendment and can curate or even censor speech without violating the law. In fact, some have argued that a platform’s right to keep up and take down what’s posted there is its own free speech right. Others have pointed out that not policing for abuse has a chilling effect on speech.
Typically, liberals will tell us that if we don’t like what’s on TV, then change the channel. Don’t like the movie? Don’t go. Of course, when they do not like what’s on talk radio, which is dominated by Conservatives, then it needs to be restricted. Twitter and other social media? Forget blocking and muting, anything that might upset the littler darlings must be shut down. Even though they are engaged typically in political discussions. They just don’t like to have anyone argue back.
Sure, it can get nasty. Ignore them. Mute them. Block them.
One of the main forces governing speech online is the same thing that governs Walter’s speech in his local diner: societal norms. Norms are customary standards for behavior that are shared in a community. They can be self-enforced by a person’s desire to fit in with the group and conform, and they can also be externally enforced by the group when an individual violates the norm. Speaking at a lower volume in a public place is one kind of norm and shaming a person who yells loudly is a way that norm is enforced.
Which is a hoot, considering liberals are working overtime to destroy societal norms, such as allowing confused boys in the girls room, for one.
You know that this is all about shutting down opposing voices. Of course, liberals should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.
