Free Speech, Free Commerce, and the Spread of the Gospel
“It is censorship based on political/religious ideology. The erosion of free speech and the willingness of liberal-minded people to celebrate its demise is shocking.” - Kevin Schaal
- 6 views
Private corporations do not owe anybody “free speech.” The kind of freedom we’re expecting to see from these businesses has no precedent in American history. The same freedom that allows P&D to review posts and decide what to allow permits the social media platforms to select content as they see fit. As for Elon Musk, he lifted restrictions for some then banned links to competing social media platforms. He is no champion of freedom of expression.
Unless we decide social media platforms belong to the people, like government entities do, we should adjust our expectations for corporations, social media or not. (And even for government entities there have always been limits.)
I’m open to arguments that social media should become government owned or viewed like utilities and heavily regulated. But we should be clear about the tradeoffs. The only way to force social media platforms to allow things they don’t want to allow is to take freedom away from these businesses and hand it to government. What’s the bottom line ‘freedom score’ on that sort of move?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I think you are missing the point. I don’t think Kevin is arguing that we must somehow campaign for private corporations to grant us free speech.
What he is doing is making an observation of a trend that seems symptomatic of our society at large. It isn’t inconceivable that these trends are harbingers of greater societal change and pressure to come.
Having made that observation, he is calling on us to redouble our efforts at evangelism, to work for the night is coming.
That doesn’t appear to be what you are arguing against, so perhaps go back and read it again?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The article is unpersuasive and alarmist, in my opinion.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The article highlights real implications when corporations take actions to throttle action, speech and then downstream inevitably stifle conscience and thought.
If there’s one thing the Twitter files have highlighted, it’s that some people are either oblivious to this current potential harm or simply don’t care about it.
I get that Kevin’s ultimate point is that a) we should not be intimidated and b) the gospel is not hindered by these trends. I agree!
Unfortunately, there’s a ton of evangelical and conservative energy right now in a particular narrative and we need to recognize that it’s a political, agenda-driven narrative. The narrative is:
- The godless left (or swap in ‘elites’ about half the time, if you’re Tucker Carlson) are increasingly oppressing Christians
- Our culture is collapsing before our very eyes
- Social media and tech giants are silencing dissent and assaulting free speech
- (Stated or unstated conclusion: we need more of the right people in Congress and the Whitehouse to stop all this)
I don’t buy the narrative. Each point has a kernel of the truth but they’re all exaggerated or distorted in some way and realities that don’t fit the narrative are artfully omitted. The fourth point is what all that is really about: political power and/or fame, clicks, shares, and revenue.
We should look at facts on the religious liberty front. The facts are that, as far as government goes, we keep winning—with a few exceptions that get all the attention. The real fight is the cultural one, and it has nothing to do with politicians, elections, or legislation, or even court cases.
It’s true that the social media giants aren’t always fair, and neither is big tech. There is no political cure for this that isn’t worse than the disease.
As Christians, we’re in a uniquely apt position to recognize how all this really works: the health of a society/culture is all about hearts and minds, not policies. (Though I’m all for good policies, the pursuit of them can often work against mitigating or solving the deeper problems.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
How did we communicate with each before the advent of social media?
Do that.
Why people would look to what they read / see on social media as a source for truth is beyond me.
[T Howard]How did we communicate with each before the advent of social media?
Do that.
Why people would look to what they read / see on social media as a source for truth is beyond me.
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Even participating on this forum shows that you aren’t doing the pre-social media type of communication. So…
As preachers, we need to teach discernment, but we can’t expect people to “un-tech” themselves.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Aaron Blumer]
- (Stated or unstated conclusion: we need more of the right people in Congress and the Whitehouse to stop all this)
I am still arguing against this. I think you are reading a conclusion into the article that isn’t there.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
For me, the question is who is speaking?
Whether it’s a private entity like Twitter, Facebook, or SharperIron, or a public forum like a PTA open microphone, or a public institution like Shawnee State University, what happens when the freedom of speech of the individual conflicts with the freedom of speech of the entity?
I read things here at SI that I don’t agree with. Aaron posts things (especially about politics) that I think only his house plants agree with.
SharperIron doesn’t have a political side. It does have limits on speech. And it does have limits on belief.
Since SharperIron membership was based on these, it’s my understanding that those are the basic limit. Post within those limits and the member can speak freely. But if someone wanted to come on here and promote JW teachings, they would end up banned. I assume we all agree that
This thread is about Twitter, which purports to be a public forum: “We serve the public conversation. That’s why it matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk.” As such, it ought to be free from censorship. I would argue that even if Twitter didn’t make such a statement about “public conversation,” it is, de facto, a public forum. And therefore it should not be able to restrict the beliefs of it’s tweeters or their expressions of those beliefs.
Public forum or not, there is a) always a need to filter content and b) currently no principle for the government to step in and “put a stop” to perceived or actual unfairness. In this case ‘public’ means ‘for the people/everybody’ not ‘owned by public/everybody.’ But either way, “the public” would have to be the ones to fix it and in this case ‘the public’ is not the government.
So, Republicans in Congress cannot be said to have failed in this… unless we mean they failed to do something that was none of their business to attempt.
(Stated or unstated conclusion: we need more of the right people in Congress and the Whitehouse to stop all this)
@Don, I’m not saying this is Kevin’s point. But this is the narrative. He verbalized 75% of that narrative. My point is it’s a false narrative and we should reject all of the parts that aren’t true… which is way more than the remaining 25%. If we rephrase the fourth point from “we need more of the right people…” to just “Congress and White house should put a stop to this,” this idea is clearly implied in the essay.
@Dan, I fully agree that companies should live up to what they market themselves as, and if they don’t, pushback from the market is 100% appropriate. It’s a very different thing to say the government should force them to live up to the principles they claim.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion