I think the most important conversation about limits of free speech is not about incitement. It’s about social media platforms and social media use. As more and more evidence piles up that social media use is unhealthy, and particularly social media monetized by algorithms designed to generate anger is harmful and was known to be harmful, we will, as a society have to decide how we should restrict social media. This will bump up against the free speech of social media companies and/or users.
Yes, I think that's entirely plausible. But even then, we'd still need to be having these conversations around protected speech. I chose incitement because it's the most common accusation when it comes to free speech debates, especially surrounding political violence. The same cultural misunderstanding around incitement is still present when shifting the conversation to social media. I hope this makes more sense to you and your concerns. I do think you're right: more of life is becoming online and so we'll need to have these conversations soon. Right now, though, I don't think anyone is ready for that until they get more clarity on what speech should be restricted in the first place more broadly.
Yes, I’d imagine a good bit of overlap on the principles, but certainly will bring new circumstances to judge. And like with actual speech and incitement, the circumstance is of the utmost importance to make any determination.
Well written, Jordan. Interesting about speech that is not protected. I didn’t remember that.
I’ve been really upset by this. Another senseless act of violence. And it boils down to this: no one’s words MAKE anyone else do anything. People might not like what others say, they might get mad. But they choose what they do with that. They choose their actions, and they need to be held accountable. Someone CHOSE to shoot and kill Kirk. Because they didn’t like the words he says?? What he stands for?? It doesn’t matter if people don’t like what he says, it does not give anyone the right to kill him. It’s just heart breaking.
It all stems from the fact that we live in a broken world. And there is only One answer for that.
Yes, it is a common dilemma free speech advocates face: we want as much speech as possible, but some speech is harmful to that freedom. The ability and necessity of the receiver of the speech to choose their response is likely why the Court has kept the parameters fairly broad, circumstantial, and seemingly contradictory. But at the end of the day we all know some speech shouldn't be allowed to spread, because it can legitimize violent action where it doesn't belong: namely, public political debates. Where we draw that line on speech has yet to be seriously considered by our culture.
There could be Three answers, depending on how one counts.
Very interesting and logical perspective. The government has been far too lax on free speech, which is why so many people exploit it. When the Constitution was first written, it couldn’t have accounted for the technologies and ideologies we deal with today. That’s why we keep running into the same issues, and why we’ll likely continue to.
The same goes for the Second Amendment. At the time, firearms had limited capacity for damage, and there were legitimate reasons for civilians to own them. Law and order was still a developing concept: there was no reliable way to call for help in an emergency, and no guarantee that justice would be served after the fact. The amendment was designed to let people protect themselves and their property with the tools available in that era.
If the Constitution were written today, I’m sure it would include hundreds of caveats—for example, restrictions on civilian use of ARs and rifles, or clearer limits on what the First Amendment protects and the technologies used. But who’s to say? In 50 years, we’ll probably still be arguing over these same principles, just with different players and different tools.
The Constitution is malleable; they purposefully wrote it so that later generations could improve upon it with their new knowledge and unpredictable problems from the lack of that knowledge. But they indeed left the First Amendment, particularly speech, mostly wide open. Washington was the first to crack down on particular speech, so you're right to say this a longstanding confusion in our national zeitgeist.
I don't think we'll be arguing over the same things necessarily, but I would hope future Americans are still debating which speech should be protected. It's an important debate that will never be fully explained or known. However, you rightfully point out, as I do throughout this piece, that our culture uses the charge of hateful, violent rhetoric for giggles and clicks. I think we should be having serious conversations about where to draw the line so to avoid more violence, rather than waiting until after some horrific event to levy accusations of past incitement.
Interesting piece.
I think the most important conversation about limits of free speech is not about incitement. It’s about social media platforms and social media use. As more and more evidence piles up that social media use is unhealthy, and particularly social media monetized by algorithms designed to generate anger is harmful and was known to be harmful, we will, as a society have to decide how we should restrict social media. This will bump up against the free speech of social media companies and/or users.
Yes, I think that's entirely plausible. But even then, we'd still need to be having these conversations around protected speech. I chose incitement because it's the most common accusation when it comes to free speech debates, especially surrounding political violence. The same cultural misunderstanding around incitement is still present when shifting the conversation to social media. I hope this makes more sense to you and your concerns. I do think you're right: more of life is becoming online and so we'll need to have these conversations soon. Right now, though, I don't think anyone is ready for that until they get more clarity on what speech should be restricted in the first place more broadly.
Thanks for reading!
Yes, fundamentally we need to consider what is protected speech and whether we find those boundaries to be acceptable.
The limits on protected speech regarding incitement are from fairly similar case law right?
aren’t the justifications and case law different regarding what corporations can do and say?
And then restrictions on use by users probably delves into other cases.
I don’t really know, but I sense for reading (only enough to be misinformed) that from a constitutional law perspective it’s a different conversation.
Yes, I’d imagine a good bit of overlap on the principles, but certainly will bring new circumstances to judge. And like with actual speech and incitement, the circumstance is of the utmost importance to make any determination.
Well written, Jordan. Interesting about speech that is not protected. I didn’t remember that.
I’ve been really upset by this. Another senseless act of violence. And it boils down to this: no one’s words MAKE anyone else do anything. People might not like what others say, they might get mad. But they choose what they do with that. They choose their actions, and they need to be held accountable. Someone CHOSE to shoot and kill Kirk. Because they didn’t like the words he says?? What he stands for?? It doesn’t matter if people don’t like what he says, it does not give anyone the right to kill him. It’s just heart breaking.
It all stems from the fact that we live in a broken world. And there is only One answer for that.
Yes, it is a common dilemma free speech advocates face: we want as much speech as possible, but some speech is harmful to that freedom. The ability and necessity of the receiver of the speech to choose their response is likely why the Court has kept the parameters fairly broad, circumstantial, and seemingly contradictory. But at the end of the day we all know some speech shouldn't be allowed to spread, because it can legitimize violent action where it doesn't belong: namely, public political debates. Where we draw that line on speech has yet to be seriously considered by our culture.
There could be Three answers, depending on how one counts.
Thanks for reading!
Very interesting and logical perspective. The government has been far too lax on free speech, which is why so many people exploit it. When the Constitution was first written, it couldn’t have accounted for the technologies and ideologies we deal with today. That’s why we keep running into the same issues, and why we’ll likely continue to.
The same goes for the Second Amendment. At the time, firearms had limited capacity for damage, and there were legitimate reasons for civilians to own them. Law and order was still a developing concept: there was no reliable way to call for help in an emergency, and no guarantee that justice would be served after the fact. The amendment was designed to let people protect themselves and their property with the tools available in that era.
If the Constitution were written today, I’m sure it would include hundreds of caveats—for example, restrictions on civilian use of ARs and rifles, or clearer limits on what the First Amendment protects and the technologies used. But who’s to say? In 50 years, we’ll probably still be arguing over these same principles, just with different players and different tools.
The Constitution is malleable; they purposefully wrote it so that later generations could improve upon it with their new knowledge and unpredictable problems from the lack of that knowledge. But they indeed left the First Amendment, particularly speech, mostly wide open. Washington was the first to crack down on particular speech, so you're right to say this a longstanding confusion in our national zeitgeist.
I don't think we'll be arguing over the same things necessarily, but I would hope future Americans are still debating which speech should be protected. It's an important debate that will never be fully explained or known. However, you rightfully point out, as I do throughout this piece, that our culture uses the charge of hateful, violent rhetoric for giggles and clicks. I think we should be having serious conversations about where to draw the line so to avoid more violence, rather than waiting until after some horrific event to levy accusations of past incitement.
Thanks for reading!
Three answers, indeed. 😌