In 1897, US newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst sent illustrator Frederic Remington to cover the Cuban War of Independence. When Remington said that “there will be no war,” Hearst allegedly cabled back: “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.”
It is an old story with a well-known moral: Wealth confers power, and power begets a craving for more power.
A familiar corollary follows: He who controls the means of mass communication controls how reality is constructed and conveyed.
The means of mass communication have changed since Hearst’s time, but the behavior of plutocrats has not. Having used Twitter quite effectively to promote his own businesses, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk recognizes that the platform commands significant influence in contemporary public life.
While he has since tried to wriggle out of the deal that he signed to buy the platform, he might have no choice but to follow through. In any case, it is worth considering his stated reason for pursuing ownership of the company.
“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free-speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” Musk wrote on Twitter on March 26.
In deciding to buy the company, he said a week or so later: “I don’t care about the economics at all ... my strong, intuitive sense [is] that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization.”
So, as a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” Musk claims to be saving society’s public square by reversing Twitter’s policies to prohibit politicians such as former US president Donald Trump and US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from using the platform to propagate demonstrable lies and disinformation in the name of free speech.
Musk’s call for “absolute freedom” of speech might sound simple enough in the abstract, but the implications are troubling.
For example, his understanding of free speech would validate conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ defense of his reckless and injurious lies, including his outrageous claim that the 2012 Newtown school massacre, in which a gunman murdered 26 people — 20 of whom were six and seven-year-olds — was staged by “crisis actors.”
A Connecticut court has just rejected that view, ordering Jones to pay nearly US$1billion to the families of the Newtown victims.
The court is right. No freedom — whether of speech or action — is absolute. On the contrary, meaningful freedom requires ground rules to limit abuses that would otherwise render it a dead letter.
That is why there are laws against fraud in the marketplace of goods and services. Without such constraints, false and deceptive claims would proliferate, fomenting levels of mistrust that inevitably invite market failure.
The same goes for the marketplace of opinions and ideas. Freedom of speech is not a license to deliberately or recklessly issue statements that harm others or put their property rights at risk.
That is why there are laws against defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress — as the Jones case reflects. It is also why there are laws proscribing incitement to imminent violence, perjury and lying to the authorities about criminal activity.
Some limits on speech have also been deemed essential to safeguard free and fair elections.
For example, there are laws in many US states that proscribe deliberately spreading false information about polling locations, voting times, ballot authenticity or voting instructions. A person also cannot make provably false claims about their status as an incumbent or about their campaign’s affiliations.
As the criminal prosecution of participants in the violent mob that sought to block the peaceful transition of power at the US Capitol on Jan. 6 last year makes plain, the freedom to hold unpopular political views does not confer a right to violent insurrection.
Even with the present policies of content moderation, social media platforms are awash with disinformation that is corroding public trust and undermining the essential function of free and informed political discourse.
Such subversive tactics designed to crash the marketplace of opinions and ideas are “anti-speech acts.” Their only purpose is to debase political discourse itself.
Musk has already offered clear insight into the changes he might make at Twitter. What starts with reinstating Trump’s account, allowing him to disseminate more demonstrable lies about election fraud and his political opponents, might imply, more broadly, further evisceration of Twitter’s standards.
Musk’s claim that he would save society’s “public square” is fundamentally bogus.
He is likely to fuel its disintegration by permitting it to be overrun by toxic disinformation, including deep fakes, insipid propaganda, calls for violence, doxing and other forms of illiberal anti-speech acts.
Richard K. Sherwin is a professor of law and director of the Visual Persuasion Project at New York Law School. He is coeditor, with Danielle Celermajer, of A Cultural History of Law in the Modern Age.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS