I wrote to my member of parliament (a member of the opposition party) , complaining that the Government was proposing to reduce freedom of speech in the UK. She wrote back staying that she didn't believe in an absolute right to freedom of speech and asked should someone be able to stand up in a crowded theater and shout "fire" thus causing a panic?
Ignoring to debate her assumption that panic would ensue (not in Britain, surely?), I pointed out, that if there really was a fire, I would be very grateful to the person giving early warning of this dangerous situation, so if she is thinking of banning people shouting in theater she should refrain. The difference between her scenario and mine, is that in one instance the shout of fire is true and in the other, it is a malicious lie. We should all have freedom of speech, but not a freedom to knowingly lie or cause harm.
Eon Musk, who has bought twitter, believes in an absolute freedom of speech and is considering allowing any one to say anything they want, regardless of whether it is knowingly true or not, constructive or harmful. If he does, he will completely devalue his asset. Who will know the difference between truth, lies, beliefs, facts, jokes or harmful posts put up by bored people wanting to entertain themselves. If some one can post hate on twitter, which is illegal to say in the streets or print on paper in the UK, is this acceptable? No. It may be extremely expensive , or currently unfeasible to vet billions of tweets but not to start weeding out the worst ones is irresponsible.
When I send a letter to a newspaper, the editor reads it and decides if it is worth printing. If my letter is factually incorrect, or harmful to others, or just plain daft, he will chuck it in the bin. This is not censorship, but a process that maintains the high quality of his newspaper. The editor also knows that if he prints lies, hate or factually incorrect letters, he will be up before the regulator, loose credibility and probably sales. Why should twitter be any different? Perhaps if post were not anonymous, and fines imposed on users who had to submit a deposit or credit card details each year as a bond, things would improve.
Does the right to bear arms give you the right to shoot someone - obviously not. Does the right to freedom of speech give you the right to talk rubbish and cause harm - obviously not. Rights come with responsibilities and responsibilities apply to everyone. Continual abuse of these responsibilities by a small minority means politicians can use it as an excuse to take away all of our freedoms, that could ultimately lead to a dictator abusing their powers and censoring anything they don't like, such as valid criticism of their policies. .
