Apple has taken a lot of heat lately for shutting down an app on the AppStore that was used by Hong Kong protestors to coordinate action. But what has really surprised me is that many of the same people who denounce Apple for not helping the protestors in Hong Kong are the same people who want to squash free speech in America. Does anyone else see this conflict?
The Washington Free Beacon is reporting that now a majority of Americans are in favor of rewriting the first Amendment to curb free speech to censor what they define as “hate”.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to "reflect the cultural norms of today." The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results "indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed." —Collin Anderson, The Washington Free Beacon
Those who tow this line forget that it is unpopular speech which needs to be protected. Otherwise, there is no reason to codify freedom of speech. Popular speech doesn’t need protection. Protecting speech which “reflects the cultural norms of today” is just a long way of defining speech that is popular.
Those who are okay with rewriting the 1st amendment don’t actually believe in free speech or the open debate of ideas. There is nothing enlightened about that. If you make a reasonable case for your ideas and most people reject them, then you are probably wrong. It is the segment of society that loses debate that wants to shut down the dialogue.
Even Jack Dorsey of Twitter gets it wrong. He argues that people have freedom of speech but that there’s a big difference between earned reach and paid reach. Dorsey’s view presents the problem of bias which discriminates in this amplification based on “popular” ideas.
Now I have no problem with Dorsey discriminating on his own platform with who gets access to amplification and who doesn’t. The responsibility of running that business falls on his shoulders. But Dorsey belies that he is essentially anti-free speech. He’s using his position to shut down debate on his platform with people he disagrees with.
Jack Dorsey says that people can advocate for anything that they want to but that not everyone deserves access to his platform. That’s like the Saudi Arabian government saying that women have the right to drive on their own private property but not on pubic roads. Both are examples of selective access and discrimination.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to "reflect the cultural norms of today." The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results "indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed." —Collin Anderson, The Washington Free Beacon
Those who tow this line forget that it is unpopular speech which needs to be protected. Otherwise, there is no reason to codify freedom of speech. Popular speech doesn’t need protection. Protecting speech which “reflects the cultural norms of today” is just a long way of defining speech that is popular.
Those who are okay with rewriting the 1st amendment don’t actually believe in free speech or the open debate of ideas. There is nothing enlightened about that. If you make a reasonable case for your ideas and most people reject them, then you are probably wrong. It is the segment of society that loses debate that wants to shut down the dialogue.
Even Jack Dorsey of Twitter gets it wrong. He argues that people have freedom of speech but that there’s a big difference between earned reach and paid reach. Dorsey’s view presents the problem of bias which discriminates in this amplification based on “popular” ideas.
Now I have no problem with Dorsey discriminating on his own platform with who gets access to amplification and who doesn’t. The responsibility of running that business falls on his shoulders. But Dorsey belies that he is essentially anti-free speech. He’s using his position to shut down debate on his platform with people he disagrees with.
Jack Dorsey says that people can advocate for anything that they want to but that not everyone deserves access to his platform. That’s like the Saudi Arabian government saying that women have the right to drive on their own private property but not on pubic roads. Both are examples of selective access and discrimination.
RSS Feed