Ari Cohn @aricohn.com · Mar 27 One more time for the people in the back: "It's about design features, not speech" is an artificial distinction and cynical sleight of hand, just like when Texas argued that it could regulate content moderation because it is "conduct, not speech." www.fire.org/news/big-tec...
330 likes 15 replies
Replies
Consider this: ahat if algorithms are commercial speech?
Ok so forget the "design features" dodge. Is it time to think about adding an exception? Arguably, algorithims distort the marketplace of ideas so severely that their regulation is necessary to a compeling government interest and there are no less restrictive alternatives.
How stupid do you think we are?
Surely content-neutral regulations on the manner in which speech is conveyed would be compatible with the first amendment (as generally interpreted), right? Is the issue just about people trying to reclassify speech to dodge 1A rather than actually applying 1A tests to determine legality?
Why isn’t a ban on algorithmic feeds a legitimate time place and manner restriction? Why is an algorithmic feed a protected editorial decision and a blinking 70 foot billboard not one?
I anticipate this will go smoothly and you will get no pushback
I'm starting to wonder whether there exists a thing that is not speech
If it is “speech,” than why are such platforms except from liability? The argument for Section 230 was that the platforms are neutral channels, not publishers, which don’t assume responsibility for what goes through the platform. But as McLuhan observed “the medium is the message.”
I explained this in the Section 230 context to the Masschusetts Supreme Court in November: www.fire.org/research-lea...
Tomorrow I teach Brown v EMA. Since last year, I’ve included a discussion around whether we may see Right orgs take a run at it using these same arguments, and I invite my students to look at who wrote the various opinions and who’s still on the Court to speculate how that may go.
If this is protected speech, then isn't a tobacco advertisement aimed at children protected speech too? And free speech doesn't protect you from product liability, does it? If your turn-by-turn GPS is driving people into lakes, you're still liable for the hard done by your product, right?
If a documentarian interviews predators, depicts their acts, and platforms their invitations, isn't he also just "arranging and presenting others' speech"? Does editorial framing really do all the work you're asking it to do here?
R.I.P your mentions.