'What is remarkable about this volume is that the legal academics who make the arguments I have rehearsed are by and large strong free-speech advocates. Yet faced with the problems posed by the Internet, they start talking about “low value” speech (a concept strong first-amendment doctrine rejects) and saying things like “autonomy resides not in free choice per se but in choosing wisely” and “society needs not an absence of ‘chill,’ but an optimal level.”(In short, let’s figure out which forms of speech we should discourage.)'
I find "Information is dependent on where it comes from" more depressing. It is far too easy to go from there to "your arguments don't matter because I've already made up my mind."
That people I respect who used to be free speech advocates now are talking about "low value" speech etc. Check out the quote from Daniel Solove: “the law is hampered because it overprotects free speech.”
Different levels of speech get different protection (political speech, commercial speech, etc.) but I don't like the term "low-value speech". Who decides the value?
Defamatory speech isn't protected. But I still don't think "low-value" is a helpful description.
For example take comments on Slashdot or wherever saying "first post" (or "first comment" or whatever). Do they have value? Most would say no. Does that mean they shouldn't be protected?
Defamatory speech is also protected to a degree because it isn't possible to weed out beforehand, but carries consequences and could be censored after the fact.
What depresses me about it is that their basic argument is "too much free speech is a bad thing". Really? Have people become so uncritical that we need to protect them from themselves by limiting the most powerful communication/free speech tool ever invented?
Comments
'What is remarkable about this volume is that the legal academics who make the arguments I have rehearsed are by and large strong free-speech advocates. Yet faced with the problems posed by the Internet, they start talking about “low value” speech (a concept strong first-amendment doctrine rejects) and saying things like “autonomy resides not in free choice per se but in choosing wisely” and “society needs not an absence of ‘chill,’ but an optimal level.”(In short, let’s figure out which forms of speech we should discourage.)'
Depressing.
I find "Information is dependent on where it comes from" more depressing. It is far too easy to go from there to "your arguments don't matter because I've already made up my mind."
What part of this depresses you?
The part where it more or less parses as "Etiquette is more important than freedom of speech, and should be legally enforced at the expense of it."
That people I respect who used to be free speech advocates now are talking about "low value" speech etc. Check out the quote from Daniel Solove: “the law is hampered because it overprotects free speech.”
Do you really think there's no such thing as "low-value speech"? I'm not asking whether you think it's OK to regulate it.
Different levels of speech get different protection (political speech, commercial speech, etc.) but I don't like the term "low-value speech". Who decides the value?
What about categorically low-value speech? Deliberately false and malicious speech?
Defamatory speech isn't protected. But I still don't think "low-value" is a helpful description.
For example take comments on Slashdot or wherever saying "first post" (or "first comment" or whatever). Do they have value? Most would say no. Does that mean they shouldn't be protected?
Defamatory speech is also protected to a degree because it isn't possible to weed out beforehand, but carries consequences and could be censored after the fact.
I meant "protected" in the legal sense, but you're right.
What depresses me about it is that their basic argument is "too much free speech is a bad thing". Really? Have people become so uncritical that we need to protect them from themselves by limiting the most powerful communication/free speech tool ever invented?
Edit: their not there