A contention, a proposal, and a question!

On page 1025, Shiffrin writes that “the potential for unmediated mass distribution of government misrepresentation should stimulate a reconsideration of our free speech assumptions about government speech.” However, I question if recent technological and social media changes alter the constitutionality or morality of government speech. While changes in technology and social media may make lies more effective at their aims, I do not think such an outcome-centered approach should be used to evaluate the morality or constitutionality of a lie. If Trump posts an egregious lie on Twitter seen by a million people or places a quote into a newspaper seen by 10 people, both should stimulate a reconsideration of free speech assumptions about government speech. 


I had some proposals for implementing Shiffrin’s proposals. In order to regulate experts and politicians, verified accounts could be held to stronger regulations on the accuracy of their statements. Additionally, users could categorize their tweets (or other statements on different platforms) as facts, opinion, anecdotes, etc. If you were to label something as facts, then your statements would be held to the highest standard of accuracy and opinions less so. Also, public officials could be forced to both have a personal account and a professional account, and statements on the professional account could be held to a higher standard of accuracy. 


I would also be interested in hearing what Shiffrin has to say about how declining local news has potentially impacted the impact of lies or the landscape of free speech! Perhaps, lies spoken by government officials on a local level are more impactful? There are less people holding local politicians accountable to the truth. Strong local news also increases people’s trust in government institutions which might make people more wary of individuals that share conspiracy theories. I also wonder if such private interventions on social media holding lies accountable would be necessary if local news were stronger! I am wary of relying on private institutions to regulate free speech though I understand that may be one of the only plausible ways to control lies. I am of the personal belief that the destruction of local news has led to polarization which allows for candidates like Trump to be elected.  


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Updated Syllabus

                                                                         SYLLABUS                         Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 1:15-4:00 Seminar Place: Kravis 168 (when not online or outside) Tutorial Time: Designated Tuesdays, by appointment Professor: Paul Hurley Contact Info: paul.hurley@cmc.edu Office Hours: W 2:00-4:00, F 12:30-2:30 (with occasional rescheduling to accommodate faculty meetings)   INTRODUCTION This is t...
Read more

securing legitimate expectations - rawls (ft chamallas)

To what extent should legal precedent, founded on increasingly unpalatable institutional values, be upheld for the sake of formal justice? Rawls posits that justice must be grounded in the protection of legitimate expectations, particularly in a system where individuals have good reason to rely on established rules. Formal justice, according to Rawls, is the “impartial and consistent administration of laws and institutions, whatever their substantive principles” (51). This is a powerful argument for stability and predictability in legal systems, where individuals can align their actions with the expectations of the law, knowing that even if they will be treated unjustly (as formal justice does not preclude unjust laws), they will be treated consistently . Individuals will at least “know what is demanded" so that they can "try to protect themselves accordingly; whereas there is even greater injustice if those already disadvantaged are also arbitrarily treated in particular cas...
Read more

Anderson, Brettschneider, and Shiffrin: What a Trio.

​​Sorry if I jump in between ideas a bit too quickly. Just trying to get it all figured out in my head! Shiffrin x Brettschneider: Shiffrin states early on that constitutional content does not track justiciability (993). But if constitutional content does not track justiciability (aka certain constitutional violations like government officials lying / violating the First Amendment are acknowledged to exist but are nevertheless nonjusticiable), I'm still left confused on what the normative OR institutional point of having a Supreme Court is? Isn’t the foundational idea of judicial review that the Court exists precisely to interpret and enforce constitutional limits, particularly against executive or legislative overreach? If constitutional provisions or principles are beyond the Court’s reach and enforcement lies elsewhere, where lies its core role? Shiffrin seems to suggest that the Supreme Court still has a role in clarifying and promoting constitutional ideals even when it can’t ...
Read more