You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: While I may not be a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, we should not silence him. The erosion of free speech has begun.
Whether or not Twitter should expose people to a variety of views is an interesting question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. The free speech issue here is protecting Twitter's right to decide what its platform says. How it exercises that right is simply not a free speech issue.
In fact, arguing that people should exercise their right to free speech different is the very opposite of an actual free speech argument.
Should Twitter be permitted to ban whoever it pleases? That's a free speech issue. And unless you think the answer is no, then who it should ban is not a free speech issue any more than whether Milo should talk about racism or bunnies is a free speech issue.
That's a bit naive, isn't it? I don't think anyone is arguing that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to silence a minority.
Would you be happy if Facebook suddenly decided it was going to be start hiding all anti-Trump posts?
No, but that would be Facebook exercising their freedom of speech. They would be exercising it badly, but they would be exercising it.
If you think that Facebook exercising their freedom of speech badly (in some people's opinion) is a freedom of speech problem and therefore they should stop it, then why isn't Milo exercising his freedom of speech badly (in some people's opinion) a freedom of speech problem and therefore he should stop it?
There are good arguments why Twitter should not do this. But they have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
How is silencing any speech a win for free speech? Don't you see that this could set a harmful precedent?
One is a gigantic social media platform that millions are influenced by exercising censorship on public discourse. The other is a minority journalist's voice. Still think it's not an issue?
I agree with you that it's not a First Amendment issue, but it's still quite obviously a free speech issue, and it's sparked a much-needed debate over whether progressive-leaning social media giants should serve as impartial moderators of political discourse.
The mantra of free speech is that the correct response to speech you don't like is more speech. Twitter deciding not to carry Milo is Twitter's speech, just as Fox News choosing their hosts is Fox News' speech.
When people exercise their rights in ways you don't like, that's a victory for rights. When the Nazis got to march in Skokie, that was a victory for free speech, even if the march was harmful and damaging. The same is true for Twitter deleting Milo's account. Really.
It's a huge issue, just not the way you think it is. It's a victory, not a defeat. The New York Times gets freedom of speech just like Milo does. Twitter gets freedom of speech too. Yes, it would be a huge issue if, for example, the government tried to compel Twitter to carry Milo's speech.
Depending on exactly how that happens, that would be a huge defeat for freedom of speech, just as pressure for Fox News to be more Liberal would be. Free speech wins when Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and everyone else gets to shape their message, not when we have "guaranteed fair" monoliths.