The podcast explores the concept of 'jawboning' and the blurred line between speech and government coercion. It discusses government pressure on speech platforms, the impact of empty threats made by lawmakers, and the importance of scrutinizing government behavior on speech. The chapter also highlights the need for transparency in government engagement with tech companies.
Jawboning involves secretive government pressure on private sector actors to regulate online speech.
Drawing a clear line between acceptable speech and coercive behavior is a challenge in addressing government influence on private sector platforms.
Deep dives
Jaw boning and censorship by proxy in regulating online speech
The podcast discusses the concept of jaw boning, which refers to government exerting pressure on private sector actors to regulate online speech. This form of coercion is often secretive and not public, making it harder to notice. While there are clear cases where coercion is identified as a violation, such as when there are explicit punishments suggested, the line becomes blurry when it comes to strong suggestions without clear repercussions. The ongoing case of Missouri v. Biden questions whether a constant pattern of implicit threats and forceful language from government figures to private sector actors can be considered a violation of the First Amendment.
Concerns about power dynamics and speech recommendations
The podcast explores concerns regarding government figures strongly recommending certain actions, including content removal, to private sector actors. While public figures have their own expressive rights, the issue arises when there is an implicit threat of using government power to force compliance. The challenge lies in drawing a clear line between acceptable speech and coercive behavior. The current jurisprudence has only addressed the most egregious forms of coercion, leaving the less clear cases unresolved. Legislation faces similar challenges of defining acceptable speech and government influence.
Transparency as a short-term solution
In the absence of a clear legal resolution, the podcast suggests that greater transparency is needed for non-public communications between government actors and private sector platforms. By bringing these secretive acts of coercion to light, their impact can be mitigated. Increased transparency not only forces the government to be more cautious with their requests but also assists the courts in protecting American liberties. When citizens are aware of government suppression attempts, they have the opportunity to seek redress through the legal system.
When lawmakers wag their fingers in the faces of tech companies, when are they trying to exact compliance for activities that are otherwise perfectly legal? David Inserra helps us draw the lines.