Donate search
close

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

NYT: The First Amendment is So Passé

Gabriella Hoffman
by Gabriella Hoffman Read Profile arrow_right_alt

In an editorial titled “Free Speech is Killing Us,” writer and author Andrew Marantz argues “noxious speech” created by social media platforms—protected under the First Amendment—needs to go. Basically, free speech isn’t absolute. Yikes.

He wrote:

Having spent the past few years embedding as a reporter with the trolls and bigots and propagandists who are experts at converting fanatical memes into national policy, I no longer have any doubt that the brutality that germinates on the internet can leap into the world of flesh and blood.

The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?

He added:

Using “free speech” as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt. For one thing, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. Even the most creative reader of the Constitution will not find a provision guaranteeing Richard Spencer a Twitter account. But even if you see social media platforms as something more akin to a public utility, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment anyway. Libel, incitement of violence and child pornography are all forms of speech. Yet we censor all of them, and no one calls it the death knell of the Enlightenment.

Free speech is a bedrock value in this country. But it isn’t the only one. Like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety and robust democratic participation. Speech should be protected, all things being equal. But what about speech that’s designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism? Navigating these trade-offs is thorny, as trade-offs among core principles always are. But that doesn’t mean we can avoid navigating them at all.

I pointed out their proclivities for collectivist thought:

There are some crazy thoughts out there, but should they be limited?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and bad views should be out in the open for us to better reject them.

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

Advertisement

More Top Stories

LIVE: The Erick Erickson Show – Debate Debacle, NBA, and China

The Erick Erickson show is live! Here’s the plan for today. Hour 1 Democrats Debate Abortion Biden Warren on Taxes Buttigieg comes out swinging Protecting Biden NO CHINA Impeachment Beto not rea …

Josh Nass PR: Enacting Transformative Change

I have written extensively about the intellectual dishonesty that exists among some members of the media, especially as it pertains to coverage of Republicans. But as a conservative activist who would …

WATCHING COLLEGE FOOTBALL: Week 8 2019

In which I’m a shark.