Trump is the federal government. the 1st amendment was specifically supposed to prevent government interference with the press.

demanding that media publish the presidents words with no editorial interference is exactly what the founders were worried about when they created 1A.

free speech absolutists demand (checks notes) that the NYT allow Trump to write all its headlines.
the first amendment was not meant to allow the president to seize control of all media. it seems weird that you have to explain this to free speech defenders.
this is what happens though when you fetishize the speech act and completely lose track of what freedom of speech was supposed to do in the first place.
the president is literally the person the 1A is supposed to *protect media from.* It's supposed to allow media to criticize him and have an editorial policy independent of the government!
but the ACLU is hemming and hawing and furrowing its brow because twitter (a) criticized the president and (b) insisted it had the right to an independent editorial policy!
I'd feel like we were in opposite land if I were not so wearisomely familiar with free speech absolutists and their garbage bullshit.
twitter is odd because it feels like we're all sort of in an equal space and can yell at each other equally but in fact the president of the united states is hugely powerful, and misused that power to force twitter to let him misuse their platform despite their editorial policy.
it was the equivalent of trump demanding a weekly op ed in the NYT without editing. (a Greenwald deal, if you will.)
an actual instance of free speech violation on the internet is the censorship of sex workers, who have been targeted for silencing by the federal government through various laws.
to avoid prosecution, sites online ban sex workers and try to push them off platforms.

that's federal silencing of speech.
twitter refusing to bow to trump and hewing to their own editorial standards despite his threats is an exercise of freedom of speech.
this shouldn't be that hard.
the first amendment is as much about power as about speech.

interpreting it as if it has nothing to say about disproportions of power leaves you nattering nonsense.

More from Government

Which metric is a better predictor of the severity of the fall surge in US states?

1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020

Can you guess which plot is which?


The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.

However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).

Infections % from
https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.


This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.

Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.

But political lean.

One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.

This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.

We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).

https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta


To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.

This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!

You May Also Like