views
The Internet means we should rethink the First Amendment, say the media. But it doesn't. Telegraphs, radio, and TV didn't require restricting free speech. There's something wrong with anyone so intolerant of their fellow citizens that they want the government to censor them. 
Jeff Kosseff: "Hey, Let's Not Rethink The First Amendment"
Leading free speech scholar pushes back against widespread claim that "peer-to-peer misinformation" on the Internet justifies government censorship
by @shellenberger
Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.
All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”
Kosseff recognizes the Internet’s massive impact and the limits to freedom of speech. “I think, obviously, you need to have some somewhat different rules to make [the First Amendment] make sense on the Internet,” he explains. “And you can't [for example] lie in court and then say, ‘My rights are protected by the First Amendment.’”
However, the Supreme Court already ruled in Reno v. ACLU in 1997 that the First Amendment applied to speech on the Internet. After the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, an aspect of it was challenged as unconstitutional. “The government's defense of it was, ‘Well, the Internet is not really like your average speech.' You don't get the full scope of First Amendment protections for the Internet. Instead, you get lesser protections, kind of like you get for radio and TV because the FCC can regulate cursing and pornography.’
“The Supreme Court very soundly and clearly rejected that. It said, ‘No, the Internet is not like broadcast because broadcast has scarce spectrum that has to be regulated by the government. The Internet is this new medium. ' It's a beautiful opinion. Justice Stevens wrote it, and most of it was joined by all of the justices. There were two minor dissents. I think that principle needs to carry on.”
I wanted to interview Kosseff before tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, a potentially landmark First Amendment case involving government demands for online censorship....
Leading free speech scholar pushes back against widespread claim that "peer-to-peer misinformation" on the Internet justifies government censorship
by @shellenberger
Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.
All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”
Kosseff recognizes the Internet’s massive impact and the limits to freedom of speech. “I think, obviously, you need to have some somewhat different rules to make [the First Amendment] make sense on the Internet,” he explains. “And you can't [for example] lie in court and then say, ‘My rights are protected by the First Amendment.’”
However, the Supreme Court already ruled in Reno v. ACLU in 1997 that the First Amendment applied to speech on the Internet. After the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, an aspect of it was challenged as unconstitutional. “The government's defense of it was, ‘Well, the Internet is not really like your average speech.' You don't get the full scope of First Amendment protections for the Internet. Instead, you get lesser protections, kind of like you get for radio and TV because the FCC can regulate cursing and pornography.’
“The Supreme Court very soundly and clearly rejected that. It said, ‘No, the Internet is not like broadcast because broadcast has scarce spectrum that has to be regulated by the government. The Internet is this new medium. ' It's a beautiful opinion. Justice Stevens wrote it, and most of it was joined by all of the justices. There were two minor dissents. I think that principle needs to carry on.”
I wanted to interview Kosseff before tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, a potentially landmark First Amendment case involving government demands for online censorship....
Please subscribe now to support the fight for free speech, read the full article, and hear the full podcast!
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1769521190266163445?s=20
Please say a prayer for success in the Supreme Court tomorrow!
I love these guys! @JeninYounesEsq @DrJBhattacharya
Let’s go 1A!!!
Let’s go 1A!!!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
