Special Edition - Monika Bickert
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Release Date: 04/17/2020
Episode 41 - Free Speech and Racial Justice: Friends or Foes?
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
This episode will focus on what role the dynamic between censorship and free speech has played in maintaining and challenging racist and oppressive societies. The episode will use American slavery and segregation, British colonialism, and South African apartheid as case studies.
info_outline
Special Edition - Suzanne Nossel
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this Special Edition, we will zoom in on current challenges to free speech – specifically in the US. With me to discuss this timely subject, I have CEO of PEN America, Suzanne Nossel, who has just published her new book Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.
info_outline
Special Edition - Daphne Keller & Kate Klonick
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
“Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal” read a recent Atlantic article, that stated that “governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
info_outline
Special Edition - Dunja Mijatović
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Since the coronavirus became a pandemic, governments around the world have adopted a wide range of measures affecting basic human rights. This includes many of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe all of whom are legally bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.
info_outline
Special Edition - Monika Bickert
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
The Coronavirus has disrupted life as we know it. And the Internet overflows with torrents of data, news and updates about the ongoing crisis. But in parallel with the corona pandemic, WHO has warned of an “infodemic” of mis- and disinformation spreading through social media and messaging apps.
info_outline
Episode 40 - The Age of Human Rights: Tragedy and Triumph
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this episode we will explore:
info_outline
Episode 39 - The Totalitarian Temptation – Part II - Der Untergang
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Weimar Germany was deeply conflicted about the value of free speech. On the one hand, freedom of expression was constitutionally protected. On the other hand, the constitution allowed censorship of cinema and “trash and filth” in literature.
info_outline
Episode 38 - The Totalitarian Temptation – Part I
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this first of a two-part episode on totalitarianism in Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany, we will focus on the rise of communism and Italian fascism and the effects of these ideologies on free expression. Hopefully this journey into the darkest of pasts will help shed light on how to grapple with one of democracy’s eternal and inevitable dilemmas: What should be the limits of free speech?
info_outline
Episode 37 - Expert opinion: The History of Mass Surveillance, with Andreas Marklund
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this episode, we discuss the history of mass surveillance and its consequences for freedom of expression and information. With me is Andreas Marklund who is the head of research at the ENIGMA Museum of Communication, in Copenhagen.
info_outline
Episode 36 - Expert opinion: Thomas Healy on how Oliver Wendell Holmes changed the history of free speech in America
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this conversation, professor Thomas Healy explains how Wendell Holmes changed his mind on free speech and laid the foundation for the current strong legal protection of the First Amendment. Thomas Healy is a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law and the author of the award-winning book “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind--And Changed the History of Free Speech in America”.
info_outlineThe coronavirus has disrupted life as we know it. Billions of people across the world are caught in varying degrees of lockdowns with severe restrictions on their freedom of movement. But while our physical world has shrunk, cyberspace remains wide open. And there is no shortage of information as the internet overflows with torrents of data, news, and updates about the ongoing crisis. But in parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization has warned of an “infodemic” of mis- and disinformation spreading through social media and messaging apps.
Policymakers at social media platforms are acting like gatekeepers, deciding what content is sufficiently healthy for their users around the world to consume. These decisions have real consequences for the practical exercise of freedom of speech and access to information for billions of people. With me to discuss how Facebook is navigating this unprecedented situation is Monika Bickert, who is the Head of Global Policy Management at Facebook with responsibility for content moderation.
In this conversation we discuss:
- What policies Facebook has put in place to counter disinformation on its platforms;
- How much content has been downgraded and removed due to disinformation; compared to the period before COVID-19;
- How Facebook interprets the risk of “imminent physical harm” amidst a pandemic;
- How the shutdown has led to a sharp decrease of available content moderators and a reliance on automated content moderation to flag misinformation;
- Why Facebook has removed Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s comments about the supposed effects of the drug hydroxychloroquine, but not President Trump’s comments about the same drug;
- The pros and cons of relying on the guidelines of health authorities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and WHO to determine what constitutes misinformation even though these authorities have revised statements on issues such as the use of face masks (CDC) and the potential for human-to-human transmission (WHO);
- How Facebook uses a network fact-checkers to rate the truthfulness of stories, but who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?