Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s Post

WEBINAR: Join ITIF for an expert panel discussion exploring the intersection between #digital #policy issues and the #FirstAmendment, the free speech implications of proposals to address #online problems, and how #lawmakers could address these problems without infringing on users' or companies' speech rights. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/eg-2uVHZ Speakers: - Ashley Johnson, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation - Aaron Mackey, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - Kate Ruane, Center for Democracy & Technology - Nicole Saad Bembridge, NetChoice Background: As #Congress and the states attempt to address a long list of real or perceived online problems, lawmakers' proposals often encounter the same roadblock: The First Amendment. Whether attempting to #regulate social media platforms' content moderation or increase children's online #safety and #privacy, the government cannot dictate individuals' speech or companies' editorial decisions. With multiple ongoing #lawsuits alleging that various state laws have overstepped this boundary, the courts will determine how the First Amendment applies to these digital policy issues, and lawmakers may need to go back to the drawing board and take a new approach to achieving their goals. Register now on our webpage: https://lnkd.in/eg-2uVHZ

Social Media and the First Amendment

Social Media and the First Amendment

www.linkedin.com

Kenneth R. Williams, PhD

Educator, Coach, Consultant, Researcher - Ethical Leadership, Toxic Leadership, Organizational Change; President at Oyster Leadership Coaching and Consulting, LLC

1mo

Insightful discussion. Regarding the posting of misinformation, the panelists were opposed to government moderation of content due to the potential of an administration controlling dissenting information. Nicole identified FEC regulations that criminalize hindering the right and choice to vote. Aaron indicated that people have a right of choice to post speech indicated the need for government train the public on Internet awareness. Education is a rational response. Extensive research on human decision-making and voting has identified that choices are irrational and intuitive initially and then people develop their rationale post hoc. disinformation operations do not target the rational, but the irrational, intuitive, and emotional. However, the panelists did not discuss intentional disinformation to manipulate the public. The one area of Contant moderation that was discussed involved harm to children. What about harm to the public in general? Should there not be some kind of law to define what constitutes harm to the public, such as, untested medical treatments? If the public is being manipulated emotionally as a result of disinformation operations, is that not harming the public and restricting their choice?

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics