[crazydoggers]

I think the issue that we are all grappling with is the amount, speed of dissemination, reach, and substance of all the speech that Facebook allows is something humanity has never grappled with.

We generally agree that speech should be free, but obviously we put limits on it. For instance we do not allow yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The reason is that people are directly harmed by that speech, and it has no upside.

It’s perfectly reasonable to consider much of what goes on, on Facebook in the same vein. If holocaust denial, or other types of hate speech or misinformation are spread rapidly, and cause moral panic, possibly harm to others, should we not consider limiting it?

It’s not a black and white issue of “speech should be free at all times”.

Facebook and social media is fundamentally changing (has changed) how humanity communicates. Thinking though and questioning the ethics and moral obligations of those services is quite important.

[SamReidHughes]

Obviously we should -- particularly for people that advocate for abortion, whose voices need to be suppressed. The cost of their speech is too high.

[Zanni]

This is a brilliant comment that shouldn't be down voted, whatever side of the abortion debate you might be on. It exactly highlights the danger of suppressing free speech. While you'd be hard pressed to find reasonable people that deny the Holocaust, there are plenty of emotionally-charged political debates where the numbers are less lopsided. Shortsighted people might want Facebook suppressing that "hate speech" as long as it breaks their way, but what about when it doesn't?

[dmode]

[flagged]