For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.
For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.
You see on one extreme you have people stifling legitimate opinion, and then on the other you have people advocating lynchings. There isn’t a simple answer, but the answer certainly isn’t to smugly sit in the middle and pretend you have it all sussed just because you have no skin in the game. Ultimately all you are doing is advertising that you are ok with lynchings or whatever other forms of bigotted violence because it doesn’t effect you.
It does affect me. I am for the free speech of e. G. nazis. Even though it will affect me and all of us.
But that’s not the point. Free means free. It might be dangerous, it might be far away from my views. But who am I to tell others when they mustn’t voice their opinion? Free speech stops with the very first restriction and rarely stops there.
You said it’s no easy answer. But to restrict “free” speech is an answer. And it draws a subjective line. Cool if you share the opinion,not so cool if you happen to be the opressed.
Not a long time ago (or today in other countries) women had no rights to dare voice an opinion. Or blacks. Or gays. Or trans. Or or or or.
We germans e.g. Aren’t allowed by law to question the holocaust. While i agree it surely happened, forbidding discussion is plain stupid. Question it, and be allowed to be convinced otherwise. That’s rational and mature. Just outlawing the question seems like bad parenting on a law level.