What do you think?
Back when 1A was written, the distinction probably seemed pretty clear. Or did it?
How about now?
Back when 1A was written, the distinction probably seemed pretty clear. Or did it?
How about now?
Are Tweets Speech, Press, or Something Else?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
The tweets are because of the "press"...he has to go around them because they're so corrupted with liberalism. So since it's a big eff you to the corrupt press, I'd say it's not press.
I agree. But....
Is propaganda protected speech? I think so, if individuals are doing the speaking. But is propaganda protected press? That seems trickier, to me.
The Founders may not have realized it, but they started an experiment with the 1st amendment. The hypothesis was that the marketplace of ideas could be counted on to bring the truth to the fore - or at least enough of the truth that the voters could make reasonably well-informed collective decisions.
We've been collecting data ever since, testing whether that hypothesis stands or fails.
When speech and press were defined as they were for most of our history, we saw ups and downs. On the down side we saw yellow journalism, rushes to war, red scares, and defenses of racism. And yet most people probably felt that, on balance, the marketplace of ideas worked pretty well. Maybe not day to day or even year to year, but certainly over longer stretches of time. We eventually got civil rights and women's rights, we occasionally stopped a war. The truth eventually came out on many hidden wrongs. We occasionally threw the bums out.
But is it true today that a marketplace of ideas effectively informs us? Is it true in an era of the internet, on one side, and corporate consolidation of the press, on the other?
I think the answer is much more in doubt than it ever has been.
In that context, the fact that the worst abusers who use speech and press to produce dishonest outcomes - epitomized by FOX and Trump - are the ones raising questions about who should be allowed to speak or publish should scare us all.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine the question whether the worst propagandists and liars should be allowed to call them selves "press" and hide behind those protections.
If a blind allegiance to the marketplace of ideas is aiding a dishonest press in the destruction of democracy, which side are you on?
In answer to the question posed in the title of the OP, I would say tweets are certainly speech (doubt anybody disagrees) and depending who you are they could be viewed as "press" if you have a certain number of followers or a status with a generally-accepted media body. I don't know what else tweets could be so I'll pass for now on the option of "something else".
I don't know what else they could be, either, but maybe we need a new category.
On the one hand it's tempting to consider a tweet or Facebook post as speech, because it's just you, expressing your views.
You aren't delivering those views vocally. But it's just you.
But is there something about verbally presenting your views that is special? Something unique to verbal speech? Maybe so. In the first place you are there, communicating directly with a person or a crowd of people. You are subjecting yourself to arguments, derision, competing speakers. Your verbal behavior is directly shaped by the responses you get. The depth of your speech is steered by the questions you are asked, or the alternatives your audience voices.
Are those important things? I think so. Are they an important difference between speech and press? They aren't there when the NY Times prints its paper, or when Hannity rants on FOX.
You might argue that they are present to some degree on Twitter or Facebook. So does that keep them "speech"? Are they present enough?
Are they press - as you suggest - if a person has a lot of followers? Or if your "speech" is widely retweeted or shared? Or are they still speech? Or have we witnessed the emergence some hybrid, thanks to the the technological evolution of ways to communicate?
President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...318-false-or-misleading-claims-over-263-days/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...318-false-or-misleading-claims-over-263-days/
Sounds like a fake president to me ...
Good point.
From my point of view, I distinguish between those who are willing to converse and those who aren't. I'm inclined to consider comments from those who converse as speech.
I have less kind labels for the comments from those in the other demographic - although, to be fair, sometimes some of them can step out of character and converse. too.
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452, 58 S. Ct. 666, 669 (1938):
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.
Many of that founding generation, including John Adams, passed the sedition act of 1798 that criminalized making false statements about the federal government. So we might be wrong to think the founders intended to protect propaganda. Aren't you glad that original intent view has lost that fight?
I think the argument has turned into this:
If Tweets can be considered "press" if you hold a certain status or occupation, or if you simply have enough followers to be deemed influential in some way...
And you constantly say stuff that cannot be factually true or perhaps verified to be true...
And you are the POTUS...
Then you cannot whine about other "fake news"...
But I could be wrong.
If Tweets can be considered "press" if you hold a certain status or occupation, or if you simply have enough followers to be deemed influential in some way...
And you constantly say stuff that cannot be factually true or perhaps verified to be true...
And you are the POTUS...
Then you cannot whine about other "fake news"...
But I could be wrong.
Tweets are bullcrap much like the posts on Facebook and most of the posts on hrot. Pure idiocy. Much like most words uttered on npr radio and.by" journalists ".
A couple of things worth pointing out....
Most obvious is the idea that press involves publication. Am I "publishing" when I hit the "Post Reply" button? Is that all there is to it? Is it necessary; is it sufficient; is it both?
Less obvious may be the bit implying that reason we protect the press is because of its value in the defense of liberty.
No difference between them for 1st amendment purposes, I agree - because both speech and press are covered in the same amendment. But they are not the same. One might be speech, the other might be press.
In an era when many - across the political spectrum - are upset at dishonest and deception in the media, it's natural to challenge whether such dishonesty and deception is entitled to unquestioned protection even as it undermines democracy and liberty.
Is the constitution required to be a suicide pact?
The 1st amendment does not prohibit defamation lawsuits, it merely requires a higher hurdle when the speech is directed at a public figure.
Plus, I don't agree that the modern news and social media tips the balance toward dishonesty. There may be more liars with a greater access to a audience, but it's also truth there are more people with the ability to expose these lies. I don't see that truth is suffering.
sitting on harvey Weinstein stories for decades while making up fake stories about trump and a bus and Russia
I looked through the stuff you provided and saw that the media profession is made up professionals that are primarily liberal. I knew this already. Everyone knows this. It goes with the territory. So where is the corruption?
No. You don't know the difference between truth and fiction. I am telling you that you cannot come up with significant examples of what you are accusing the main stream press of. You can find singular examples and errors, for sure. No industry is perfect. But the legitimate press, I'm not talking about Fox News, or Brietbart, or the right wing propaganda machine, the legitimate press is solid and produces a sound product.
People like you don't read newspapers or magazines. You don't get your news from real news sources. You attribute everything you disagree with to dishonest news reporting. This is part of the dumbing down of America that has elevated media monkeys like Limbaugh and Hannity to superstar status, while they spew their vitriolic venom to be eagerly lapped up by audiences sufficient in size to make wealthy media moguls.
Similar threads
