First Amendment

Fake news and censorship 🗣✖

|
  • There are some facts that are demonstrably true
  • Facts are different then values and priorities

People should accept demonstrably-true facts but not values and priorities automatically. There should be no censorship of people’s views and priorities, but people should be honest and base their views and priorities on fact not fiction.

  • People sometimes use falsifications to avoid being seen as callous or absurd
  • But also people also use claims of fake news and falsification to downplay valid values and priorities

Sometimes even the most non-partisan fact-checkers can be guilty of calling out legitimate facts based on their own biases. Sometimes something can be true, if in a limited sense. That limited sense should be clearly disclosed, and people’s values and priorities made clear in an honest fashion.

  • Fact-checkers should try understand the values and priorities of those they are trying fact check
  • Fact-checkers should point out misleading statements
  • Fact-checkers should try to explain why the person believes in or is making a misleading statement
  • Fact-checkers shouldn’t be in business of deciding if a policy is callous or absurd

I don’t support censorship, but I do think the public deserves an honest debate from all sides and that perspectives outside of the mainstream should not be suppressed or not allowed to be heard. Just because you disagree with something, or don’t believe it should be taken seriously, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be heard.

“It isn’t nice.” – Malvina Reynolds

|

Democracy is messy. A little civil disobedience is part of protest, it helps raise awareness. Managing protests can be hard especially when emotions are high. Police have a tough job figuring out how much disorder to allow but protests are much better managed today then 50 years ago – fewer people are injured, less property damaged, less people arrested.

I would rather see some windows broken, some traffic stopped on highways or train tracks and some disorder in general if that’s what it takes to increase awareness of community problems. We can’t back away from our constitution or the first amendment just because we don’t like the message of the protestors. Glass can be replaced but our constitution can’t be.

NPR

|

Trump Sues Facebook, YouTube And Twitter For Kicking Him Off Their Platforms : NPR

Former President Donald Trump is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube over their suspensions of his accounts after a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in January.

Trump filed class action complaints in federal court in Florida, alleging the tech giants are censoring him and other conservatives — a long-running complaint on the right for which there is little evidence and that the companies deny.

While I am no fan of President Trump, I think this could be an important First Admendment case that could protect free speech if any online community is required to protect speech. 

NPR

|

Supreme Court Rules For Cheerleader In Free Speech Case : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader, who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school,... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

I just think the Florida anti-protesting law is just disgusting. 🤮

|

Citizens have the right to speak up, rally and have their concerns heard. Any attempt to silence dissent should be frowned upon. Protestors should not be labeled rioters or insurrectionists, but merely demonstrators. Sometimes protests get emotional, sometimes property is broken or damaged. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have protests.

Now I get that the Florida anti-protesting law is mostly a response to the Democrats labeling the unruly and rather asinine pro-Trump protests at the US Capitol insurrectionists, and the abuse of the law by federal agents to aggressively prosecute those who marched on and in some cases damaged the Capitol grounds is gross. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Republicans shouldn’t be enacting a law because Joe Biden’s administration is being unfair to the January 6th protestors. And just because a protest is completely asinine and insane, doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to be heard and not be taken seriously.

There is a lot of injustice in the world today. People have the right to be heard. Law enforcement should work with demonstrations to ensure that people have a chance to have their voices heard, while minimizing damage to property and injury to fellow protestors and people going on their businesses. But remember broken glass isn’t end of world. The government breaks a lot of glass and tears down a lot of buildings with eminent domain to build highways, office parks and “public” works.

Protests may be asinine, and the may be inconvenient to people trying to get through daily business, but that shouldn’t be a reason to allow people to have their voices heard.