• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Press instead of Internet Speech.

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?
 
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?
I mean, there are website that essentially have no rules. If you don't mind seeing child porn you can always go to 8chan and have nearly perfect free speech. After a few seconds there you will probably realize why most people choose to stick with website that moderate or have TOS.
 
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?

What is literally stopping you from creating your own media platform on the internet?

If 4chan can exist, so can you.
 
I mean, there are website that essentially have no rules. If you don't mind seeing child porn you can always go to 8chan and have nearly perfect free speech. After a few seconds there you will probably realize why most people choose to stick with website that moderate or have TOS.

But those websites rely on third parties to get the speech out. So they arent truly free. The ISPs, DNS providers, etc could deplatform them. No such tech exists to stop me speaking to someone in public about the same things. What about the press though?

Also child pron is not speech. Thats criminal action.
 
Thoughts?
Well, as a journalist manque, I seem to remember the saying that "There is freedom of the press only for those who own a press."

So, yes, you could easily print your own newspaper, but when established papers are dying off, and even the famous alternative weeklies of the last century are mostly defunct, you might have a hard time finding readers even if your paper were free.

Niche weeklies still might have a chance. Here in Los Angeles, there is a very professionally produced free weekly called the Jewish Journal that is really interesting. It's also online.
'
 
But those websites rely on third parties to get the speech out. So they arent truly free. The ISPs, DNS providers, etc could deplatform them.
Yeah, they could...but they haven't been. Like, 4chan has been up for decades. They are just slightly more strict when it comes to criminal activity than 8chan is.

Also child pron is not speech. Thats criminal action.
My point was that websites exist that have so few rules literal criminal activity happens on them on a regular basis and they aren't shut down.
 
Yeah, they could...but they haven't been. Like, 4chan has been up for decades. They are just slightly more strict when it comes to criminal activity than 8chan is.


My point was that websites exist that have so few rules literal criminal activity happens on them on a regular basis and they aren't shut down.

Right, but they CAN be shutdown once critical mass and the right people are involved. Look at Parlor. Substack goes through Cloudflare, so they can simply cancel their account. If they use Amazon, they can cancel their host. Even if they host themselves, the need an ISP to get on the line. What happens when Comcast starts blocking people who say, on their own server, the election was stolen and peopel should revolt.

And actually 8chan was taken down.

 
Well, as a journalist manque, I seem to remember the saying that "There is freedom of the press only for those who own a press."

So, yes, you could easily print your own newspaper, but when established papers are dying off, and even the famous alternative weeklies of the last century are mostly defunct, you might have a hard time finding readers even if your paper were free.

Niche weeklies still might have a chance. Here in Los Angeles, there is a very professionally produced free weekly called the Jewish Journal that is really interesting. It's also online.
'

Sure, its more difficult, but it sounds like it is more free.
 
Right, but they CAN be shutdown once critical mass and the right people are involved. Look at Parlor. Substack goes through Cloudflare, so they can simply cancel their account. If they use Amazon, they can cancel their host. Even if they host themselves, the need an ISP to get on the line. What happens when Comcast starts blocking people who say, on their own server, the election was stolen and peopel should revolt.
There are both blockchain and P2P methods of online organizing. I'm not saying your concern is entirely misplaced, but with technology as it stands the internet would have to be entirely shutdown altogether to make it less effective at rallying people than handing out flyers.

And actually 8chan was taken down.
It was, but they relaunched it under a different name which is still up.
 
There are both blockchain and P2P methods of online organizing. I'm not saying your concern is entirely misplaced, but with technology as it stands the internet would have to be entirely shutdown altogether to make it less effective at rallying people than handing out flyers.


It was, but they relaunched it under a different name which is still up.

Even blockchain and p2p require third parties to enable them. But yes, those probably do balance the convenience and freedom scales. For now.
 
If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
Yes.

See Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938): "The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets."

The freedom of the press is best interpreted as protecting the written word, while the freedom of speech protects the spoken word. In such a scheme, "the press" has no more right to do anything than John Q. Citizen. This is good. When special carveouts of rights are granted to "the press," someone's going to have to decide who is "the press" and, consequently, who gets those special extra rights.

It won't always be people you like who do the deciding. More importantly, the people doing the deciding won't always like you.
 
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

First, the "Press" when referred to in the Constitution concerns communication media. There was no Television, Radio, or Internet back then. The sole "media" were publications of various kinds, i.e. Books, Newspapers, Pamphlets, letters, Flyers, etc., all produced on a printing press.

However, with the development of modern media, (television, radio, etc.) the term has expanded to cover those as well. So in answer to your first AND second questions, yes you would be protected as an individual and a publisher if you "print flyers." Just note that such "freedom" does not protect any "publisher" from slander or libel law.

So that leads to your third question, can anyone stop you. Again, you are free to publish your speech howsoever you wish. But you remain subject to civil liability and possible criminal liability if such publications are found to be libel and/or threats.
 
First, the "Press" when referred to in the Constitution concerns communication media. There was no Television, Radio, or Internet back then. The sole "media" were publications of various kinds, i.e. Books, Newspapers, Pamphlets, letters, Flyers, etc., all produced on a printing press.

However, with the development of modern media, (television, radio, etc.) the term has expanded to cover those as well. So in answer to your first AND second questions, yes you would be protected as an individual and a publisher if you "print flyers." Just note that such "freedom" does not protect any "publisher" from slander or libel law.

So that leads to your third question, can anyone stop you. Again, you are free to publish your speech howsoever you wish. But you remain subject to civil liability and possible criminal liability if such publications are found to be libel and/or threats.
What if Im just a publisher like twitter is?
 
What if Im just a publisher like twitter is?

Twitter is not simply a "publisher." Twitter is a "marketplace of ideas" much like the old "town marketplace" example used in deciding past free speech legal issues. They provide a site for members to "speak" on.

In Twitter's case it is one thing to set up certain restrictions in keeping with slander/libel laws and laws against conveying credible threats. Quite another to limit expression in a very biased way, so that only speech that is deemed "politically acceptable" is allowed.

If Twitter, an allegedly "American-based" company, acts in a "speech-biased manner," then it should be held accountable like any other "marketplace of ideas" provider.
 
Last edited:
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?

I think for just random opinions and protections against charges such as 'sedition', anyone who posts on their Substack or their Medium page could be considered 'the press' for 1A purposes. The trickier part is what happens if someone gets a 'scoop' involving classified information that involves national security secrets. Would they get the New York Times treatment or the Julian Assange treatment?
 
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?

I mean, there are website that essentially have no rules. If you don't mind seeing child porn you can always go to 8chan and have nearly perfect free speech. After a few seconds there you will probably realize why most people choose to stick with website that moderate or have TOS.

U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists​

Even when they're libeling you
By Robinson Meyer
JANUARY 21, 2014
SHARE
"So everyone—not just journalists—benefits from the First Amendment’s protections, which makes bloggers (even slimy ones) legally equivalent to journalists*. Cox’s case will get a new trial in Oregon’s district court, and the jury will be appropriately informed of the Gertz rule. Perhaps the award of damages will be reduced..."

Until a SCOTUS ruling, (and even then, now that this white Roman Catholic and self proclaimed "lynching victim" Clarence Thomas SCOTUS majority have discarded precedent as a predictable or even a strong influence on their rulings...) IMO, what is determined in a ruling in one circuit is not necessarily recognized in any other. Applicable law can be contradictory in geographical areas depending on Circuit Court jurisdictions.

This site has links to every relevant Federal Circuit court "input" and individual state and DC shield laws and precedents,
Examples,
“...New York's Shield Law provides journalists an absolute privilege from testifying with regard to news obtained under a promise of confidentiality but only a qualified privilege with regard to news that is both unpublished and not obtained under a promise of confidentiality.” Baker v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 669 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2012); see New York Civil Rights Law § 79-h. For more information, see New York Privilege Compendium, Section II.A.

The Second Circuit does not appear to have examined the Connecticut shield law statute, which came into law in 2006, and is codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-146t. For more information, see Connecticut Privilege Compendium, Section II.A.

The Second Circuit also does not appear to have examined the Vermont shield law statute, which came into law in 2017, and is codified at Vt. Stat. 12, § 1615. For more information, see Vermont Privilege Compendium, Section II.A. .."

 
Last edited:
This is nonsense. As if an ISP would shut down a completely legal paying customer.

And what if your ink suppliers decide to boycott you to shut down your printing press? The idea that if you have a printing press you're not subject to others' decisions is dumb.
 
Since free speech on the internet is difficult given the reliance on third parties to transmit or access it, what about the Press instead? What makes the Press the Press such that it is free from govt infringement. If I were to print flyers, am I the Press?
And if so, would this be a way to more easily achieve free speech? Produce a newspaper, allow anyone to say anything they want in it, print it myself, deliver it myself. Can anyone stop me?
The equivalent is impossible on the internet, which requires internet providers, wireless or cable companies, network protocol associations.

Thoughts?

re: substack, which faces the same problems. If third parties want to deplatform them, they can. Is the Press more free?
Free speech is not difficult on the Internet. Third parties are essentially granted immunity from civil prosecution under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 230).

Also, just a reminder. While the individual right to free speech exists, there is no individual right to a platform upon which to exercise your right to free speech. In other words, bring your own soap box if you want something to stand on while expressing your freedom.
 
I mean, there are website that essentially have no rules. If you don't mind seeing child porn you can always go to 8chan and have nearly perfect free speech. After a few seconds there you will probably realize why most people choose to stick with website that moderate or have TOS.


About a third of the membership here are already longtime regulars on 4chan and 8chan right now.
Another 20 percent are also Stormfront aficionados.
I'm sure there's plenty of overlap so it's still about a third altogether.
 
Back
Top Bottom