So the US government can make “requests” to private companies to remove speech? Because as we all know the government certainly has no power, and there is nothing implied at all with a gentle request. Just like the well dressed gentleman who compliments your store and suggests what a shame it would be if anything bad would happen to it.
It’s not a violation of the first amendment because they were refused and Google still exists this morning. “Request”, “urge”, “cajole”, “beg”, “say pretty please with sugar on top”…none of those are a “law…abridging the freedom of speech” made by Congress or a state government.
Even the request wasn’t made in terms of taking down the video 'cause we said so. From that article: “White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube’s terms of service, after the company said on Wednesday that the video was within its guidelines.”
And they *did *reconsider, and they did take down some additional videos which were likely to break local laws, which is a violation of YouTube’s terms of service.
Don’t see a first amendment issue yet.
You wouldn’t feel intimidated AT ALL IN ANY WAY if high ranking government officials make requests of you? You’d have to pretty unusual psychologically for that to be true.
This isn’t even the first effort, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff called Terry Jones and asked him to somehow stop promoting a film no one can see.
Oh, hell yeah, I’d be intimidated. I mean, lets be real here…if I was hosting the video, all they’d have to do would be to send Obama to my apartment and flash that smile and I’d be falling all over myself to take down the video and get him a beer. But I’m not a multi million dollar company with considerable clout of my own.
But I still wouldn’t see a first amendment issue. The first amendment is pretty clear. It applies to Congress and State legislatures (the State part was added to the interpretation later) and it applies to laws or similar formal actions that come with “or else” attached. (And if this does turn out to have an “or else” down the line, then yes, I’ll agree with you.) Anyone can ask anything they like; that’s not a law. That is, in fact, the point of the Right.
I’m curious…what would you have us do? Should we draft a law that White House officials can’t ask filmmakers and distribution outlets to review their works and consider if they meet their own guidelines and conscience? Doesn’t that seem to abridge the free speech of White House officials?
I don’t think the White House should have done it. It’s too thin a line, too potentially prone to abuse, too easily misinterpreted as coercion.
However, they made a request and Google said no, they asked to reconsider, Google did and still found no fault. As far as we know Google didn’t lose any grants due to this, the Government hasn’t stopped dealing with them, and Google’s stock didn’t mysteriously plummet – nor has the CEO died of some sudden onset illness. I think what the White House did was reckless and stupid, despite understanding their motives, but I’m going to chalk this one up to administrational faux pas – not oppressive botched conspiracy.
Nope, because I know that they can’t make me do it if I don’t want to, thanks to that pesky 1st amendment.
It’s a bit like the Chick-Fil-A kerfluffle a little while ago: no, urging a boycott is *not *infringing on someone’s 1st amendment rights. We all have the right to say whatever we want, even if it’s something that someone else might not like.
If you say so.
That is a very narrow reading of the 1st, far narrower than I have ever seen before.
White house officials or other government officials acting in official capacity have no free speech rights.
As individuals they do, but both requests were clearly made in official capacity.
I’d say it was if a government official called up Chik-Fil-A and requested they rethink their stance.
Not a violation of the 1st amendment, but definitely meant to have a chilling effect. This is really an issue where the government should be standing up for free speech, not showing weakness in the face of the ultimate heckler’s veto.
Chick-Fil-A didn’t spark protests around the world, though.
That aside, however, will you agree that it’s not a violation of the 1st to *request *something?
From a private individual? No of course not.
But a government official is a different story, the request carries with it implications.
Lets try a hypothetical at a lower level of government, say you were a locally prominent protestor for illegal immigrants in Arizona and you get a phone call from sheriff Joe Arpaio requesting you stop organizing protests. Is that ok?
If they want to I’m sure they can simply order the thing removed. I guess they would invoke the Fighting Words Doctrine.
I ignore things the government asks of me all the time, and those are usually codified into law. I have no qualms ignoring a simple request. Who cares? They’re the government, they work for me, not vice versa.
I lean toward this view. I do think a “request” can imply a level of intimidation–a chilling effect, as you refer to it–that could be a first amendment violation (IMO), even if technically the request can be refused.
I’m generally against the government making any request for someone not to express their opinion or thoughts, but I can see where certain situations might cry out for a “let’s all please take a deep breath and stand down for a minute, please?” type plea.
Google-YouTube and the White House both know perfectly well that what they are is participating in a pas-de-ballet meant to show to world public opinion, *"See? Our government does **not *support this at all and we did ‘do something about it’, in fact we did all that is in our power to do, which is strongly condemn the video and politely ask the venues showing it to consider the impact they’re having while showing them our disappointed face. But we cannot throw them in jail or shut them down, we got a First Amendment, we gotta play by the rules! (Gee don’t you all wish YOU had that?)" Yes, I know, a lot of people would prefer if the WH reaction were “Hell, so what if there’s something inflammatory out there? Your problem, not mine, deal with it, babe!”. Well, that’s not the way of this world.
And if Sherriff Joe made a call just plainly requesting I please stop organizing protests, no he would not have (yet) violated my free speech rights… But BTW he would NOT do that. He would look for some aspect of the protests, such as whether they are within 500 feet of a school during class hours or are treading on the desert vegetation or I have not provided enough port-a-potties or some such thing, to indicate he feels he’s got some legally justified reason to go after me; he’d start violating when he starts suggesting “or else” there will be consequences.
This is not correct. Google “government speech doctrine.”
The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law…”. It does not say “Congress shall make no implications.” That’s why I don’t need to feel intimidated if the government asks me to censor myself. The Constitution is literally and explicitly on my side. That doesn’t mean I may not feel daunted by the prospect of actually standing up for myself, but the Constitution deals with my legal rights, not with my feelings.
This is how I read it as well.
The administration is making a show of "doing all it can’ to demonstrate to the Arab world how American Style free speech really works. If they DID take down the video then it would be seen by the offended as a diplomatic move, if they don’t the WH can use it as a teaching example that the imams will have a hard time spinning.
I’ll leave Constitutional interpretation to those you with more legally acute minds. What this story tells me is exactly what our government thinks of the 1st Amendment. Not much at all.
Especially when it comes from someone who continues to argue he has the right to lock you up for the rest of your life without justifying his decision.