|Near Uvalde TX, 1985|
David Pakman took on the issue of incitement in speech in excerpting a Tucker Carlson Fox News video in which Carlson suggested “real insurrection” after interviewing the Uvalde TX (near San Antonio) about immigration problems (or gang risks with illegals).
Pakman points out the Carlson’s audience is so large that Carlson’s call (rather like Giuliani’s “Trial by Combat”) would have a real statistical chance of inciting an actual violent act (maybe comparable to Comet Ping Pong in 2016) and so amounts to stochastic terrorism. (That’s a term American Johnson uses a lot on the NonCompete channel.) So it would be unlawful, not First Amendment protected.
Similar arguments have defended YouTube’s policy on election disinformation (requiring countervailing views within the videos), and even vaccine misinformation, for fear that it would actually endanger public health by reducing the willingness of some people to become vaccinated.
Enter Bret Weinstein and his Dark Horse podcast excerpts, where he discusses past YouTube censorship of information on Ivermectin and on COVIA19 virus origins, when this information is now becoming more credible with experts. YouTube’s moderators are in no position to judge the likelihood that conventional wisdom on new medical science could change.
In other news, a group called Article19 is calling Facebook to account for censoring posts critical of the Indian government in its reckless handling of the Covid19 pandemic this spring, allowing it to spiral out of control with oxygen and hospital shortages.
Facebook is also accused of placating Israel for deleting Palestinian civilian posts of the abrogation of their rights in occupied Gaza and West Bank, and probably critical of settlements, Smex story.
We’ll return to Florida’s new social media law regarding censorship soon.