I’m deeply uncomfortable with what Barack Obama said. He’s saying that the government should essentially sponsor censorship of viewpoints online. It’s breaking the first amendment through the back door.
No, he isn't. He's saying that these outlets can (and do) exercise editorial control, so they should be treated as entities that do that, with a combination regulatory and "industry practice" approach.
The purpose of free speech is not to say things that are popular. It’s to say things that are offensive, hard to hear, disagreeable, or perhaps uncomfortable truths that will be conventional wisdom in the future.
Sort of. Free speech does allow people to say things that are offensive, but that's not the reason we have it. It's not about protecting the right to lie. Free speech is meant so that people can't be arrested for saying things that are counter to what the government or its leaders want. This is in contrast to places like Thailand, where it is illegal to say bad things about the monarchy (See here). As in punishable by law.
Something people forget is that the right to speak freely doesn't guarantee that there will be no consequences for doing so. Free speech was enshrined in our bill of rights at a time when dueling was legal. (see here) It was also at a time when there was no means of being heard beyond shouting range.
And of course the way the law will work will be to ban conservative viewpoints but not lard left viewpoints. There are plenty of scary things or clever lies on the left too. And the words “hate speech” means almost anything that those who endive political correctness say it does. While I support get marriage, we have to tolerate those religious people who do not support gay marriage for example.
Your speculation about who will be censored more is just that - speculation. I speculate that if that comes to pass, it's more because people on the left don't advocate violence as often as people on the right. It's an interesting point about tolerating intolerant people. I agree that that's necessary - people should have a thick skin - but it doesn't mean that people who go around skirting the line between strong opinion and hate speech should be idolized and heavily amplified.
What if someone opposes affirmative action? I’m sure it will get labeled at hate speech and be banned. What if someone wants better relations with Russia? What if someone disagrees with the interpretation of Covid-19? Originally masks were bad, and then they were good. What if someone wants to oppose masks? What if someone says that Covid-19 is a huge threat but they don’t want regulations to bankrupt their business? What if someone merely wants to defend themselves when accused of a crime? We all know some people accused of terrorism turned out to be innocent. After 9/11 Muslims weren’t liked very much and I’m sure these proposed laws would have limited their speech.
People shouldn't be silenced for disagreeing with a policy like affirmative action, but they might expect to get laughed or shouted at by others in the community (who are also exercising their free speech rights, after all). If they start spouting racial epithets, or spewing lies about the program or the people it helps or hurts, then maybe their voices shouldn't be amplified.
As a side note, the guidance on masks (at least from the CDC and infectious disease experts) was always that people should have their faces covered, but the concern was that people might get a false sense of confidence and stop taking other precautions (like social distancing) if they were wearing masks (source). There are others in the government, notably the President, who said masks and precautions weren't necessary, but experts didn't say masks were bad, they just weren't sure if they were a net good at first.
To be clear I’m not denying that there are lies and fabrications online. People have lied about Covid-19 and said it was a conspiracy against Trump. But increasingly we are losing our freedom of speech. Recently Politico deleted an oped because the French Government rigorously disputed it. The New York Times forced out the editorial editor from the newspaper for publishing a Republican Senator’s oped. Yes, people disagreed with him, but he was articulating a point of view. Just remember the cancel culture. Recently an academic conference on the cancel culture in Australia was itself canceled.
There was backlash against Politico for their article, and they removed it. It could have been censorship, I don't know for sure, but it seems that it was an editorial choice by Politico, not a case of the French government requiring them to take it down. Under pressure, possibly, censorship, probably not.
It looks like the Times op-ed was based on untruths, which is why it was pulled. The editor admitted to never having read it before publication, and they also didn't fact-check it ahead of time. (see here) It would have been fine if the Republican senator had expressed his opinion along with the facts of the situation - that's what public debate is all about. Expressing an opinion with a bunch of non-facts (whether they were outright lies or just repeating what he had "heard") is something that the Senator shouldn't have done and the Times shouldn't have printed. That's the reason for the retraction, not the fact that it was a conservative or unpopular point of view.
Saying you can buy your own URL is silly because first companies have started to not offer server space to super controversial (but legal) points of view. And second, if your site gets too popular you too will get regulated. Or if it doesn’t, then no one will see it and your freedom of speech is fake. It would be like saying, you can give a speech and say what you want in a public forum. But if more than 5 people are listening, then the government will regulate the content.
No company or individual is required to help others amplify their speech.
Consider this scenario: I own a megaphone, and I have two neighbors. I agree with one of them, so I loan him my megaphone so that he can be better heard. I disagree with the neighbor on the other side. Should there be a law requiring me to loan my megaphone to that neighbor? Am I censoring him if I refuse to do so?
I say the answer is no to both questions.
