[wayoutthere]

I believe in freedom of speech.

What I do not believe in is freedom of mass speech. Your responsibility to the truth should increase in line with your reach. Have 1000 followers in twitter and want to talk about starting the next holocaust? Great, say whatever. A million followers? Yeah, that’s a problem.

I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone.

[EricE]

>"I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone."

At least in the US you can't enforce it - and yes, any lunatic can grab a megaphone if they want.

The best way to handle problematic speech is more speech, NOT less. Trying to pretend lunatics don't exist is irrational and often a pretext to just block people that others disagree with. Screw that. Safest place for lunatics is out in the open, not driven underground.

[otterley]

> The best way to handle problematic speech is more speech, NOT less.

This theory is an interesting one. This concept is enshrined in our law. I used to think that this was true, but now I'm no longer sure. For the concept to work, it requires that our populace have an open mind and actually be receptive to different opinions and points of view. Sadly, in the last 30 years or so, we have become less so.

[MrMan]

its categorically untrue. it is at best wishful thinking. but if the person who says it knows that the statement is false because of human nature and the way we interact in societies, what does that say about them?

[TameAntelope]

Except censorship of radical ideas has been shown to be effective, over and over again.

I’m on my phone, but there’s a whole bunch of studies that show the effects of banning radical speech on Twitter (think ISIS), and the outcome was, unsurprisingly, less radical speech on Twitter. It didn’t return, it didn’t evolve, it just… died.

Free speech is an important concept, but it’s important at both ends; it’s also free speech to deny someone access to your megaphone, should you happen to own one.

[0] https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~dyang888/docs/jhaver-2021-dep...

[1] https://theconversation.com/amp/does-deplatforming-work-to-c...

[2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/deplatforming-parler-bans-qa...

[raxxorrax]

These studies are pretty much worthless. Of course it "works" if you remove your political opposition. At least in the short term. Why do a study if you could have just asked any other dictator?

What does "working" even mean? More support for a political party? Less resistance?

[TameAntelope]

They’re worthless because you don’t like their outcome? There are others, this is a very well researched space.

You don’t have to and shouldn’t take my word for it. Study after study shows that radical ideas can successfully be removed from a platform though censorship.

[wayoutthere]

Well the way things are headed, we’ll be fighting it out in the open IRL soon.

[Clubber]

>Well the way things are headed, we’ll be fighting it out in the open IRL soon.

If so, I think it will be along the lines of two people get into a fight. After about 5 seconds, they are exhausted and realize that getting into a fight was a really bad idea. They will soon stop and hopefully grab a beer together afterwords, perhaps to argue politics some more.

[EricE]

Good. Too many have let things like blatant censorship go on for too long. It's time for more people to be uncomfortable, if for just a little. We are drowning in a morass of complacency :p

[zozbot234]

The First Amendment expressly provides for freedom of the press, which was the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers". The only form of "mass speech" that's broadly government-regulated in the U.S. is communication that's broadcasted via the radio spectrum, which is inherently a scarce resource.

[Dylan16807]

> the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers"

But that's not what they're calling mass speech.

It's not helpful to take someone's post and change the definitions out from under them.

To rephrase it without that term: Printing press scale speech is great. This new ability that twitter gives us, trivially reaching millions, was not foreseeable hundreds of years ago, is causing problems, and should be treated differently.

[zozbot234]

Something that's published to "a million followers" will attract criticism very quickly if at all merited. Remember Trump's Twitter feed? That's the scale you're talking about.

[Dylan16807]

Now that's an actual counterargument to OP's idea.

But I don't know how much those criticisms help.

[Sebb767]

The problem is that this doesn't work. The exact point of free speech is that you need to allow people to say things you don't consider true. Back then, you could've easily argued that he spreads scientific nonsense by saying people are equal and that he shouldn't be allowed to talk to such an audience.

[jrpt]

Who defines what the truth is? The mainstream? That didn't work out too well for Galileo.

[arc-in-space]

> I believe in freedom of speech.

> (...) we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone.

It appears that you do not, in fact, believe in freedom of speech. Being heard is the point of speech.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You may or may not have noticed that you can be heard without a megaphone. The purpose of a megaphone is not just "to be heard", but to increase your audibility in specific situations. Just as "freedom of speech" does not include the "right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater", it isn't terribly obvious that it includes the right to be heard in situations where you can only be heard with a megaphone.

[arc-in-space]

Nobody here is suggesting handing out literal megaphones, the analogy is not very apt in the first place. I was responding to the primary argument made in that comment, which is that speech performed by people with larger followings should be subject to more scrutiny and control, which basically amounts to no free speech.

[Octabrain]

I strongly disagree. That arbitrary line is dangerous: Who decides when the amount of followers vs kind of message is not allowed? When the message is inconvenient? Inconvenient to who? To the ones in power? Are they good or bad?

Free speech shouldn’t be censored, ever. Instead, we should focus on giving, as a society, much more importance culturally speaking to critical thinking. Critical thinking should be a sacred element and should be promoted in any education level and in any cultural manifestation we citizens are exposed.

[rossdavidh]

Well in the example given, Stephen Douglass was free to speak to a small group, but not to a (for the times) large one. Your criterion is exactly the one that would legitimize censoring Stephen Douglass.

[throwawayboise]

Frederick, not Stephen. Stephen Douglas was Lincoln's opponent in the 1860 presidential election.

[rossdavidh]

Ha! Correct you are, thanks.