"China was right"? A response to Professor Jack Goldsmith

I will also confess that I am often called a “free speech absolutist.” While that is not accurate, I readily admit to opposing most limits on free speech and I am quick to pushback on calls for censorship. Thus, it was possible that the glaring referral to China as being right on Internet speech controls led to a knee-jerk response.

However, reading Professor Goldsmith latest article, my fears were quickly allayed. He is still advocating censorship and the Lawfare column only magnifies concerns over the euphemistic spin given calls for censorship by academics and writers. The column struggles to maintain that one can be a champion of free speech while calling for censorship. It is a common pushmi-pushyu creature seen at universities as academics call for censoring “harmful speech” and “misinformation” while proclaiming their fealty to free speech. …

The entire premise of the column (despite later denials) was to warn companies and countries not to restore the level of free speech allowed before the pandemic. Goldsmith declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.” He does not define what those mandatory or protected “norms and values” will be.

While Professor Goldsmith denies ever advocating censorship, his column specifically credited companies with working with countries like China on “censorship practices.” He commended these companies for “proudly collaborating with one another, and following government guidance, to censor harmful information related to the coronavirus.” The authors argued that, even with the passing of the pandemic, countries and companies should not go back to allowing the level of free speech that once characterized the Internet. It is a rejection of those who us who consider ourselves “Internet originalists.”