Journalists and free speech

Journalists celebrate the destruction of others' free speech

"Last year [ ] police were lambasted for trying to control violence at Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests. Journalists disdained tear gas and arrests in favor of addressing the "systemic racism" supposedly responsible for the disorder. After the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, some raised questions about police failure to stop the mayhem, but once again, progressive journalists are focusing elsewhere. They've identified a new root cause of mob violence: free speech."

"They've cheered the social-media purge of conservatives and urged further censorship of "violent rhetoric" and "disinformation." It's a remarkably self-destructive move for a profession dependent on freedom of speech, but the journalists now dominating newsrooms aren't thinking long-term — and can't imagine being censored themselves. The traditional liberal devotion to the First Amendment seems hopelessly antiquated to young progressives convinced that they're on the right side of history." 

To which I add, "And feeling morally superior!"

"It wasn't enough to ban Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter if he and his followers could move to Parler — so Parler had to be shut down, too. Big Tech obliged, succumbing to pressure from the media and their Democratic allies in Congress. (Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores, and Amazon forced Parler offline by booting it off its web servers.) This unprecedented suppression was denounced by conservative and libertarian publications like the Wall Street Journal and Reason, and by a few independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald, but the usual solidarity among the press against censorship was missing."  

Nuanced Censorship #2

This post is an offshoot from yesterday's. The Ayn Rand Institute’s (ARI) digital publication New Ideal has an article about free speech and regulation featuring John Stossel and ARI’s chairman Yaron Brook. It includes a video of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook testifying before Congress that he is willing to work with regulators for what he regards as rightful regulation. Brook and Stossel Scrutinize Facebook’s Regulatory Bid.

Stossel appears before Brook and argues that Facebook is only trying to use regulations to erect a protective wall against competitors, a frequent argument made against government regulation by free markets advocates. Then Brook argues instead that Facebook is acting in self-defense, to protect itself against government meddling and/or control. Finally, Stossel begrudgingly accepts Brook's argument, according to the author of the article.

I agree more with Brook's argument, since his is stronger and better tied to the relevant facts at hand. However, we differ some on the reasons for self-defense.

A business such as Facebook may face two fronts -- competitors and government. Stossel focuses on the first and Brook the second. Zuckerberg welcomes government regulation if he can shape it to (1) legally support Facebook’s own practices or desires, and (2) make it easier for Facebook to comply with future regulation. He doesn't express any desire about wanting to make compliance more difficult for Facebook's competitors. He may have this desire in the back of his mind to thwart competition like Stossel says, but thwarting competition is not mentioned in the video with Zuckerberg.

I agree with Brook's idea that Zuckerberg is trying to defend himself or Facebook from government controls. However, Brook and I differ at least some on the kind of controls. He uses Microsoft as an example to explain why it's self-defense. However, in Microsoft's case, the government's concern was monopoly. There might be some concern about monopoly in Facebook's case, but it is not mentioned in the video with Zuckerberg. Instead his concern is bad regulation -- bad in his view. He welcomes government regulation about censoring content that users put on Facebook as long as the regulation is shaped to suit Facebook. Using the new terms I introduced in my previous post, Zuckerberg is comfortable with turning Facebook's quasi-censorship or extra-legal censorship into legal censorship. Opposing bad regulation is a form of self-defense. On the other hand, Zuckerberg wanting "good regulation" --  good in his view -- is a form of offense.

Nuanced Censorship

Two typical dictionary definitions of "censorship" are:

1. The process of removing parts of books, movies, letters, etc. that are considered inappropriate for moral, religious, or political reasons.

2. The practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought.

Both leave open who is the censor – a government, religious authorities or other.

In contrast, Ayn Rand asserted that “censorship” pertains only to government being the censor (link).

Whether you agree with the dictionaries or Rand, it would be helpful to have two terms to distinguish who the censor is in this era of “hate speech” and actions by Facebook, Google, and YouTube. “Censorship” could refer to censorship by a government. “Quasi-censorship” could refer to censorship by a non-government entity such as Facebook, Google, or YouTube.

The distinction is still not as clear as it may seem at first. Suppose:

- the government passes a law specifying what sort of content can be legally censored by Facebook et al

- Facebook et al heavily, successfully influences the legislative details such that the details are much like what Facebook would do anyway on its own.

Hence, the legislation is authored in effect by government and other entities, crossing the presumed boundary between “censorship” and “quasi-censorship.” But at least it affords a boundary between legal/illegal and extra-legal (not a matter of law). That leads to a different distinction. “Censorship” could refer to censorship by a government. “Extra-legal censorship” could refer to censorship by a non-government entity.