>> We've never had a situation where fake news can and does spread the way it does today, where authorities are being undermined like this and casually dismissed by people with no knowledge of the respective fields, etc. ... The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it.
Seeing this come from someone in the legal profession is deeply concerning, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a "Biglaw first year" is in favor of restrictions on speech that would elevate their corporate clients' interests over the public's.
It's important to understand history here, which you obviously do not. The Gutenberg press took the power of knowledge transfer from a small group of people (the church) and gave it to the larger public as a whole. You would argue that this did not accomplish as much as the internet has because people were still illiterate and writers still had to find a publisher; however, you are arguing quantum (erroneously, as well) rather than kind and so we should actually look at the quantum of change the internet has wrought. To do this we need to fast forward from the 15th century to the 20th and examine another technology that caused a fundamental change in the spread of information: radio.
Radio blew away your literacy barriers, and the early history of radio establishes that (prior to FCC regulations) nearly anybody could start their own local radio station. "Fake news" and anti-authority speech was rampant in the early days of the radio. There are numerous books on the subject and the government's attempts to rein in this speech, you can find most of them by googling the phrase "Radio Right." Along comes TV, and sensationalism grows along with people's access to information.
Now we can accurately compare quantum. Did the internet bring about as large a change in conditions as the Gutenberg press? That answer is not so clear cut as you have argued elsewhere here. The Gutenberg press took from the privileged few and gave to a much larger class of people. The internet took from a larger privileged few (radio and television) and gave to a much larger class of people. However, similar to the Gutenberg press's problems with literacy and access to a publisher, the internet's impact is diminished by its own barriers: access to the internet at all, access to electricity, and literacy (English is not the world's language, after all).
The history of mass communication is not as black and white as you seem to suggest, and it is certainly not as barren of important movements forward. Where we are today is just the end of a long, slow march towards giving the public more free speech and access to information, a march which has been subverted and fought by governments every step of the way. The government's primary way of fighting this has historically been the "rule of law" that you so passionately advance as the reason for our current situation, but you could not be more off the mark. The rule of law is malleable and its use changes as populism waxes and wanes. I urge you to become more educated on the history of mass communication.
"Seeing this come from someone in the legal profession is deeply concerning, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a "Biglaw first year" is in favor of restrictions on speech that would elevate their corporate clients' interests over the public's."
Pretty dumb ad hominem, and demonstrates you know few young lawyers (lawyers on the whole tend to actually be pretty left, and young lawyers in biglaw tend often to be pretty far-left compared to the general population). The corporations are not too harmed either way, in any event, at least far as I can tell.
Personally, one of my main motivations to go to law school was to sort of shore up the center. I wasn't surprised people were stupid enough to vote for Trump, but I came to realize that this stupidity and the often blind hatred for "the establishment" on both political fringes posed an actual threat to society. My classmates/peers tend to be more staunchly on the progressive side of things.
Even conceding you know more about the history of mass communication than I do, I don't see how what you're saying supports either side of this. But this is useful context, so thanks, I'm happy to be corrected (see this is actually good speech because you're lending knowledge to the situation).
That isn't an ad hominem. I haven't attacked your position because of your obvious conflict of interest, I've merely pointed it out. I didn't say, "This person is a corporate shill and so you shouldn't listen to them about free speech!" I said, "It makes sense that you would be in favor of restrictions on speech that benefit your clients." I'm not casting doubt on your argument because of your bias. In fact, I attack your position's substance head on by providing actual historic context.
I could not be further from an ad hominem if I tried.
And I'm well aware of the supposed leftist slant of younger biglaw lawyers. I just don't acknowledge it as a true value they hold. Actions speak louder than words, and biglaw on the whole works against liberal values.
Seeing this come from someone in the legal profession is deeply concerning, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a "Biglaw first year" is in favor of restrictions on speech that would elevate their corporate clients' interests over the public's.
It's important to understand history here, which you obviously do not. The Gutenberg press took the power of knowledge transfer from a small group of people (the church) and gave it to the larger public as a whole. You would argue that this did not accomplish as much as the internet has because people were still illiterate and writers still had to find a publisher; however, you are arguing quantum (erroneously, as well) rather than kind and so we should actually look at the quantum of change the internet has wrought. To do this we need to fast forward from the 15th century to the 20th and examine another technology that caused a fundamental change in the spread of information: radio.
Radio blew away your literacy barriers, and the early history of radio establishes that (prior to FCC regulations) nearly anybody could start their own local radio station. "Fake news" and anti-authority speech was rampant in the early days of the radio. There are numerous books on the subject and the government's attempts to rein in this speech, you can find most of them by googling the phrase "Radio Right." Along comes TV, and sensationalism grows along with people's access to information.
Now we can accurately compare quantum. Did the internet bring about as large a change in conditions as the Gutenberg press? That answer is not so clear cut as you have argued elsewhere here. The Gutenberg press took from the privileged few and gave to a much larger class of people. The internet took from a larger privileged few (radio and television) and gave to a much larger class of people. However, similar to the Gutenberg press's problems with literacy and access to a publisher, the internet's impact is diminished by its own barriers: access to the internet at all, access to electricity, and literacy (English is not the world's language, after all).
The history of mass communication is not as black and white as you seem to suggest, and it is certainly not as barren of important movements forward. Where we are today is just the end of a long, slow march towards giving the public more free speech and access to information, a march which has been subverted and fought by governments every step of the way. The government's primary way of fighting this has historically been the "rule of law" that you so passionately advance as the reason for our current situation, but you could not be more off the mark. The rule of law is malleable and its use changes as populism waxes and wanes. I urge you to become more educated on the history of mass communication.