> public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."

I think the line between that and Brendan Carr calling ABC and saying “Jimmy Kimmel is lying, he is contributing to real-world harm, and I urge you to reduce his reach” while e.g. a merger is under review or licenses up for renewal is impossible to delineate.

And again, in any case, it didn’t work. It probably threw fuel on the fire. Government shouldn’t be saying what political speech is and isn’t said. That’s what the First Amendment ensconces.

▲

petilon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Agree, it is hard to delineate, especially when the government is run by people that are thin-skinned and retaliatory. That's what makes this issue so challenging.

But is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat? That question applies to the government as well as to individuals. I think it has to be resolved on a case-by-cases basis by courts.

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat?

Plenty of speech is criminally curtailed. Credible threats of imminent violence. Fraud. Perjury. They’re just tightly defined ex ante.

	▲	petilon 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Threat of imminent violence clearly falls on one side of the line. There are other cases that are on the border and you can't judge so easily.