In other words, you’re happy to censor speech you disagree with, while waving the flag of free speech.
Not all speech is protected, and Government officials are not allowed to censor political speech.
If I tell you to take down your comments, I am not censoring you. I’m speaking. It’s only censorship if I can force you to take them down.
The same is true for federal officials; just telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Without an actual threat of force, it’s not censorship or intimidation.
Note that I’m not arguing that intimidation cannot and does not happen. But intimidation requires an actual threat. Not just an angry email.
The ironic thing is that federal officials can speak freely because of the First Amendment. It gives them license to speak because actual legal protections exist for citizen speech. The power of federal officials is well constrained under U.S. law. They can tell a media company to change their content, and the company can say “no.” Because of the First Amendment.
We know from the Twitter document dumps that government officials on both sides of the aisle have been demanding that speech (and speakers) critical of them, their preferred policies and/or their political party be censored.
> intimidation requires an actual threat
Threatening to yank section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if platforms don't ramp up their censorship is an actual threat.
> You may have never heard of it, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the legal backbone of the internet. The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.
Decades later, it’s never been more controversial. People from both political parties and all three branches of government have threatened to reform or even repeal it.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-ex...
The opposite is true.
The Constitution's protection of individual citizen free speech very specifically is a restriction on the government (and its officials acting in government capacity, which is how the government speaks) from acting to limit the speech of citizens under most circumstances.
Which is exactly the case in question.
This is how Constitutional protections work. They limit the capacity of the government and its officials in order to protect the Rights of individual citizens.
Case law has long held that even the politest censorship request by the government is viewed as threat of force.
The propaganda around this issue is weak to the point of being insulting.
So too here with the 1st amendment. Interpreted literally, you're absolutely correct. Intimidation isn't passing a law, but obviously the government using threats to censor billions of people (since this would expand even beyond the US) is obviously contrary to every single reasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Again a world where the government even could censor billions of people using intimidation alone is something the Founding Fathers could never have even begun to imagine.
But under current law, intimidation must be proven (there must be an actual threat). The core question here is whether any statement, request, or demand by a federal official will be treated, by default, as intimidation under the law.
If upheld, such a standard would be a radical redefinition of the interactions between the federal government and private sector, and have some very weird and unexpected side effects.
For example, political speech is usually the most protected, but this standard would constrain tons of it. Imagine if the communications officer of a sitting Senator could get prosecuted because they asked a newspaper to alter a story they did not like. Something that happens almost every day in DC.
Stop it, you're turning me on.
