Should social media companies voluntarily adopt First Amendment free speech principles to govern speech and content posted and shared on their platforms? Is the First Amendment the best tool to combat challenges such as hate speech, disinformation, and other harmful content, or should carefully considered laws or internationally-focused policies be used to tackle these challenges? Is the problem too much, or not enough, regulation? Four experts explored these questions in a live Intelligence Squared Debate hosted at the National Constitution Center. The motion for debate was: “Constitutional Free Speech Principles Can Save Social Media Companies from Themselves.” Arguing for the motion was David French, senior writer for the National Review, and Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Arguing against the motion was Marietje Schaake, a Dutch politician and member of European Parliament, and Nate Persily, a professor at Stanford Law. John Donvan, Emmy Award-winning correspondent for ABC News, hosts.
This podcast is presented as part of the National Constitution Center’s A Madisonian Constitution for All initiative and made possible through the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
Please subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
