While I may not be a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, we should not silence him. The erosion of free speech has begun.
Recently, Twitter decided to ban controversial conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from its platform.
While I may not agree with half of the things Milo says, the increasing trend to create and enforce "safe spaces" and the European Commission's unveiling of its plan to counter online "hate speech" has become incredibly concerning.
A fact that is lost with many is that freedom of speech has nothing to do with defending your speech or that of those who agree with you. Freedom of speech has everything to do with defending the right of people who you vehemently disagree with to say what they want.
People who advocate for censorship of ideas and speech only show a lack of confidence in their ability to convince the general public of their opinion, and that their only tool of persuasion is to silence the opposition. No noteworthy human achievement has ever been accomplished by silencing ideas or speech.
Again: No noteworthy human achievement has ever been accomplished by silencing ideas or speech.
I can think of no greater example of this than Galileo and the Catholic Church in the seventeenth century. When Galileo proposed his idea that the Earth revolved around the sun and that the Earth wasn't the center of God's universe, the church tried to bargain with him; they asked that he propose his idea more as a philosophy rather than an actual science.
You see, the Catholic Church thought this idea needed to be proposed more slowly and that the idea would be too uncomfortable or triggering to the average Italian farmer. Bravely, Galileo ignored the Catholic Church and published his book The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems anyway, and so the church then labeled him a heretic and banished him to house arrest until the day he died. The Catholic Church later suppressed most of his work on heliocentrism for the next hundred years.
One might wonder where scientific achievement might be today if the church had welcomed Galileo's discovery instead of trying to silence it.
Supposedly, as Galileo was being banished to house arrest, he muttered under his breath "Eppur si muove", or "and yet it moves". You see, despite the fact that the Catholic Church had banned Galileo's ideas, the Earth still moved. In the same way, despite people's creation of "safe spaces" from ideas that are deemed too triggering or a reality that feels too uncomfortable, reality still moves.
Many people argue that Twitter is a private company and so they have the right to ban anyone they want on their platform. And while that's technically true, I'd ask them to consider this: Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, has embraced its unofficial slogan "#StayWoke". For those of you who don't know, "woke" means to be more aware of what's happening in your society and community around you. I would ask Dorsey: how exactly is it that people become more "aware" of what's happening in their society, if you're silencing certain opinions and ideas? How exactly does the 17th century Italian farmer become woke to the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun if the Catholic church won't allow him or her to hear it?
We should bring Milo here.
Check my work, I think you might be interested
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.