The key to free speech is censorship and regulation. Alrighty then.
How ’bout NO?
Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever | Simon Jenkins https://t.co/lbtjL6tsvm
— The Guardian (@guardian) August 15, 2022
From The Guardian:
Those worried by a lack of online accountability are convinced the only solution lies in somehow ending anonymity in that domain. Some claim anonymity helps whistleblowers and others – but such benefits are massively outweighed by the harm done by the unruly and unknown mob. The very fact that social media companies enjoy global accessibility should impose an added obligation on corporations to accept they are “publishers not just platforms”. Great as the technical problems may be, they must be held to account for the harm they can cause to others.
This is the debate now thundering into view. The correct response to the Rushdie outrage is not just to plead for freedom of speech, but to ask what it really means and how it is to be sustained – and regulated. That is not done through silence.
Gobbledygook is doubleplus ungood.
— Schadenfreudelish (@aggierican) August 15, 2022
What she said.
If speech is regulated…then it's not free.
— ☘️Tabatha- SSG Ginger (ret) 🇺🇸🏴🇮🇪 (@Winning4Him) August 16, 2022
That's NOT how free speech works ypu mindless hack. The more speech the better. Letting your opponents run their ignorant beliefs is how you dissuade people
Naturally you would want to censor it
— Rogue Sith Elf Pool 🐿 (@TheRogue_Elf) August 15, 2022
— Ty the Typo Affishianado🏴☠️ (@Ty_in_TX) August 15, 2022
— Ultra Grateful Calvin 🇺🇸🐶🏒 🎶 (@shoveitjack) August 16, 2022
You twits are truly, epically moronic!
If speech is regulated, it is by definition, NOT free.
— WitCoHE 🇺🇸 (@E__Strobel) August 15, 2022
Gobbledygook or not!