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