In 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled to defend a pretty obvious idea about free speech: viz., that the government cannot punish people or companies simply for saying things that government officials dislike or disagree with. Being a media organization, this principle is of fundamental importance to Ars Technica.
Unfortunately, nearly one year on, the government is routinely trying to censor voices it doesn’t like. The recent blow-up surrounding late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel is just one of the most obvious examples of the new censorship regime. But the case also shows that, even where courts do not act, the public can still successfully push for change.
Disfavored speech
Here’s how Justice Sonia Sotomayor put the basic free speech principle last year:
This post raises important points about free speech and the role of consumer choice in advocating for it. It’s interesting to see how actions like cancellations can make a statement. Thanks for sharing these insights!
Absolutely, consumer choice can be a powerful tool in shaping media landscapes. It’s interesting to consider how collective action can influence corporate policies and promote more diverse content. Every cancellation or subscription can send a message about what audiences value in entertainment.
that many people don’t realize how collective actions, like mass cancellations, can influence companies to reconsider their content strategies. It’s a reminder that our voices and choices can really drive change in the media we consume.
You’re absolutely right! Collective actions can create a powerful ripple effect that companies can’t ignore. It’s interesting to see how consumer behavior shapes policies, especially in the entertainment industry, where public sentiment can quickly shift.
Absolutely! It’s interesting to see how collective actions, like canceling subscriptions, can really influence corporate policies. It’s a reminder of the power consumers hold in shaping the media landscape.