Regarding Ruth Marcus’s Sept. 5 op-ed, “Ginni Thomas and the case for an ethics code”:
By Letters to the Editor
Thank-you notes are a common courtesy — not a supreme controversy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg not only thanked the ACLU — she also praised the “quality of its legal advocacy” in the Supreme Court’s “highest profile cases,” even as multiple ACLU matters were pending at the court. A judge may thank a police officer or soldier for their service without being biased in cases involving the police or the military.
In an era of declining civility, we should be doing more, not less, to thank our fellow Americans for believing in, and standing up for, our country’s values. Attacking Ginni Thomas has become an odd pastime in some quarters, but it does nothing to strengthen our ability to disagree on important issues while coming together as one united nation.
James C. Ho, Dallas
The writer is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He served as a clerk for Justice Thomas during the 2005-2006 Supreme Court term.
Save X in Brazil
Regarding the Sept. 5 editorial, “Brazil fails the Musk test”:
People can say whatever they want about X, formerly Twitter. But there is no other platform that brings together (in an accessible way) the world’s main newspapers, politicians (regardless of ideological spectrum), and figures in economics, culture, sports, business and other social circles.
X has become essential for the world’s democracies, especially for their citizens. It keeps the world informed on international bodies such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Parliament. It updates us in real time about what is happening with wars in Israel and Ukraine, an earthquake in Japan and the violations of women’s rights committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
As the Economist stated in a headline: “With Brazil banning Elon Musk’s X, who will defend freedom of expression?” It seems The Post’s Sept. 5 editorial feels the same.
Censorship and limits imposed on freedom of expression by the Supreme Court put democracy in Brazil at risk.
Henrique Alves da Rocha, São Cristóvão, Brazil
Free speech should go only so far
The Editorial Board called Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes “authoritarian” for banning X after owner Elon Musk defied orders to block disinformation and to keep a legal representative in the country. However, the writers understated the threats that Brazil’s democracy has faced from X and proponents of election disinformation.
After President Jair Bolsonaro lost reelection, he and his supporters attempted a coup, sacking Brazil’s federal seat of power on Jan. 8, 2023. The coup was modeled on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol prompted by President Donald Trump. The plotters in Brazil used comparable disinformation about election results as a pretext for violence that would invite a military intervention to reinstall Mr. Bolsonaro.
Brazil’s judges and elected government have since held coup participants accountable and banned Mr. Bolsonaro from office. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump threatens to retake power in the United States and pardon those facing charges from Jan. 6.
Unfortunately, the Editorial Board has fallen for Mr. Musk’s expansive notion of “free speech,” which clearly includes electoral subversion.
Brendan Martin, Arlington
Regarding Adam Lashinsky’s Sept. 11 op-ed, “Elon Musk, government efficiency expert?”:
One of the few things I remember from a college course in constitutional law is that the First Amendment does not give a person the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater where no fire exists. To me, that restriction underscores the concept that free speech is not absolute.
The federal definition of defamation, including slander and libel, refers to “claims alleging that forms of speech are false” and damaging. The bad news is that these are not federal crimes in the United States, and the Justice Department has no ability to pursue defamation cases.
That leaves states and ordinary citizens to assume the responsibility for reining in the abuses of the rich and powerful. As exemplified by the trials and tribulations of Alex Jones, who famously denied the reality of the Sandy Hook massacre, plaintiffs may sue only in state civil courts, with no potential for jail time. This is especially concerning now, with Elon Musk’s unfettered ability to disburse falsehoods on X.
Craig M. Miller, Leland, N.C.
I liked the Sept. 1 article “Musk and Durov are facing the revenge of the regulators,” but it misses the elephant in the room.
X is based on the rules and regulations of a republic with ideas and values that closely resemble those of a democracy. Telegram is often described as a Russian version of Facebook, and likewise does not have the same democratic values.
Every country has its own rules and regulations. Every manufacturer that wants to sell a product in another country has to abide by the rules and regulations of that country. Just because a platform’s rules and regulations work in one country does not mean they will work in other countries.
In this case, X and Telegram are skirting sovereign rules and regulations to line their own pockets by radiating harmful and divisive ideas.
Sandor Slager, Washington
Regarding Megan McArdle’s Sept. 1 op-ed, “Telegram bust sends a troubling message about free speech”:
Ms. McArdle believes the arrest of Telegram’s chief executive, Pavel Durov, is a troubling sign for free speech. I disagree. I think it is important to be clear on what sort of speech should and should not be protected in a free society, and to distinguish free speech from the right to privacy.
The First Amendment was written to protect political speech, such as stating opinions, advocating a point of view, and praising or denigrating our leaders. Political speech, even odious speech, must always be protected. That’s why it is wrong, for instance, that Brazil is trying to force Elon Musk to censor speech on X that questions election integrity or otherwise promotes former president Jair Bolsonaro’s cause.
But the First Amendment does not cover all speech. It does not allow businesses to lie about their products, for instance, because the protection for commercial speech is not absolute. And it most certainly does not protect criminal speech. If you are overheard plotting to overthrow a legitimate government, commit murder or share child pornography, you can and should go to jail.
The French authorities have every right to insist that Mr. Durov provide information on Telegram users who are using the platform to commit crimes. And, in any case, if you disagree, then you should be arguing on the basis of a right to privacy, which is not the same as the right to free speech.
John Shea, Ellicott City, Md.
‘Fake news’ laws threaten journalism
Regarding A.G. Sulzberger’s Sept. 6 Opinion essay, “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America”:
Mr. Sulzberger notes that many countries have passed “fake news” laws used to punish journalists for reporting on unpleasant realities. The same thing could happen in the United States.
In a 2019 speech, Kamala Harris called for a government crackdown against “misinformation” on social media. But, in 1945, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson warned in Thomas v. Collins that “it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine. … The forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.”
Hans Bader, Arlington
Free speech is not freedom to harm
Regarding the Aug. 22 editorial, “Sane steps to curbing social media for kids”:
The Post’s editorial states: “Congress is considering a bill that would penalize companies that don’t take ‘reasonable’ measures to mitigate certain harms. The catch is that researchers don’t know precisely what kind of content is harmful to which kind of kids, and people should not want platforms to censor young people’s speech or access to it.”
The bill the editorial questions, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), does not censor free speech. It does not require companies to take down, filter or block any content. Instead, KOSA establishes a legal obligation for social media and gaming companies to consider how design features could harm minors (based on a list of specifically defined harms), take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate these harms, and ultimately prioritize minors’ well-being over user engagement or profits.
Furthermore, KOSA does not require a company to prevent a minor from searching for content or accessing resources and information online. Specifically, Section 102(b) states that nothing in the bill should preclude “any minor from deliberately and independently searching for or specifically requesting content.”
KOSA does require platforms to provide important safeguards to help empower children, teens and parents. These safeguards will be turned on by default, limiting addicting design features.
There are many misconceptions about what KOSA does and does not do. It is a disservice to kids, teens and their families to perpetuate myths about this important bill, which Congress should pass this year.
Holly Grosshans, Washington
