Note: This “Moore to the Point” commentary aired on NewsTalkSTL on Saturday, April 16th. You can hear the audio below.
The furor that has erupted over Elon Musk’s move to purchase Twitter has been illuminating, to say the least. People in support of the purchase see the value of the platform being an open platform where all speech is allowed. Many of those opposed to it appear to have this twisted notion that in order to protect free speech, we must limit it – that “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
The impact that Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter will have on politics and society is something I worry about. Musk seems to think that anything is possible on social media. To ensure democracy survives, there must be more content moderation than ever before.
— Max Boot 🇺🇦 (@MaxBoot) April 14, 2022
No. Free speech doesn’t threaten democracy – stifling it does.
What ever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? Or “Democracy dies in darkness”? Is that true only if certain people are responsible for the switch’s operation?
It is not censorship that makes healthy public discourse possible. As Justice Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
About Post Author
