Read on Twitter
This is a much more developed version of a point I make a lot: If we aren’t willing to consider new interps of 1st Am, but we do want platforms taking down awful-but-currently-lawful speech, then private speech regulation is the only option. https://twitter.com/glakier/status/1348280186685575169
Most of the energy I see is about trying to modestly constrain that private power through weak versions of due process or public review. That’s not going to get us very far, as I discuss here. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/facebook-restricts-free-speech-popular-demand/598462/
The other logical direction of inquiry is about how else the 1st Am could be interpreted. I don’t have bandwidth to stay on top of that, but it sounds like that’s where @glakier sits, with @daniellecitron and @ma_franks.
That core what-speech-should-law-permit question gets, in my world, misleadingly and unproductively conflated w CDA 230. As if there is some simple path where we simultaneously take away 230 *and* change 1st Am doctrine so then platforms have to take down currently lawful speech.
