Free Speech

The New York Times Says 'Free Speech Is Killing Us.' But Violent Crime Is Lower Than Ever.

The 2018 Uniform Crime Report contained bad news for pessimists but good news for everybody else.

|

It has simply become too dangerous for the U.S. to cling to its norms of broad protection for all speech, no matter how hateful or extreme. Or so claims Andrew Marantz, a writer for The New Yorker and the author of a forthcoming book, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.

In a New York Times op-ed headlined "Free Speech Is Killing Us," Marantz writes that "noxious speech is causing tangible harm." Citing the ideologically motivated killings in Charlottesville and El Paso, he warns that something must be done to prevent extremist speech from continuing to inspire violence.

Here are some of his ideas:

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What I'm arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly. Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence. Social media companies have shown how quickly they can act when under pressure. After every high-profile eruption of violence—Charlottesville, Christchurch and the like—tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently banned from all major platforms.

Most of these suggestions involve government regulation, government funding, or some other sort of government intervention. (Repealing Section 230 would singlehandedly destroy free speech on the internet as we know it.) So it's worth exploring whether the claim "free speech is killing us" really holds up.

It does not. Today the U.S. has greater protections for free speech and less violence. The Supreme Court has recognized increasingly fewer exceptions to the First Amendment over the last several decades. The result has not been an increase in violence: The violent crime rate has plummeted since the early 1990s.

Just last week, the FBI released its annual Uniform Crime Report, covering the year 2018. The report was largely good news: "Both violent crime and property crime fell in 2018 from the previous year, according to the FBI's annual crime statistics released today." The report relies on data submitted voluntarily by local police agencies, and as such cannot be completely relied upon. But the general trend of declining violence is a well-established fact.

It's true that far-right white nationalists have posed an increasing threat in recent years, and that they are responsible for more ideologically motivated killings than other groups. But ideologically motivated killings comprise a very tiny portion of overall violence. We are talking about dozens of deaths each year. In the year 2018, there were vastly more homicides in the city of Chicago (1,400 killings) than known homicides by domestic extremists anywhere in the country (50 killings). And those 50 killings include not just actual hate crimes and terror attacks but completely non-ideological murders that happen to have been committed by extremists.

If the argument is that free speech protections must be curbed in order to stave off an epidemic of violence, then the argument should be heartily rejected. Domestically, our capacity for free speech has increased, but violence has not.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What continually amazes me about all these statist clowns is that even with Trump in office and destroying the country with what limited power he has (!), they want to give him even more power.

    1. “But Violent Crime Is Lower Than Ever.”

      Violent crime is ONLY lower BECAUSE we have been jailing EVERYONE in sight, who DARES to defy the Wisdom and Benevolence of Government Almighty! By, for instance, blowing on a CHEAP PLASTIC FLUTE (such as the “lung flute”) w/o proper permission! (Freedom consists of asking for permission for everything we do).

      To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

      1. I got a flute you can blow right here Whihny.

        1. Yes, but you don’t have a functioning brain. Too bad for you. I hope that you can recover. Try harder!

          1. You have some shit in your teeth slaver.

            1. Clearly, as this exchange itself illustrates, Marantz is right about the dangers posed by so-called “free” speech. Surely, in light of his forceful arguments, the “first amendment” should at least be revised and amended, if not altogether repealed? Here at NYU, we are, at any rate, extremely grateful to Times personnel for the vigorous, if subtly announced, stance they took in favor of law enforcement efforts regarding certain illegal “parodies” that were disrupting life on campus and becoming an embarrassment to several of our most respectable faculty members. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

              https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

              1. Stop blog pimping you sad fucking blog Pimp.

                1. This inappropriate use of the word “pimp” would certainly not be tolerated here in any of our student or faculty lounge, where the rules of polite discourse are applied and enforced by campus security on a day-to-day basis. I’m happy to supply readers with documentation of our fruitful collaboration with the NYTimes and law enforcement authorities, which helped our nation develop cutting-edge legal strategies to get around the so-called “free speech” baloney that’s been ruining our society. Anyone who isn’t interested in such matters is welcome to ignore my contribution to the discussion.

      2. Not true. The Freakonomics guy estimates the drop in crime, which started around 1980, was due, about a third each, to longer sentences, more policing (yor complaint) and the legality of abortions, used disproportionately by poor women, and poor people have a higher crime rate.

        This was controversial, but not necessarily false.

        1. It was entirely false since they didn’t even begin to take into account lead levels, which in any remotely stable country saw a very predictable drop in crime starting 15-20 years after various lead bans.

        2. Brennan Center has examined 14 different hypotheses – at a city/state level – re what caused crime drop including all the ones you mention. With some pretty credible reviewers – Judge Posner, etc

          They attribute it:
          5-10% each to increased income and decreased alcohol consumption
          5% each to reduced unemployment and aging of peeps – during 1990’s, no effect since
          10% each to increased police numbers and increased incarceration – for property crimes only and only during 1990’s, no effect since
          5-15% (post-1994) to increased use of statistics/computerization in managing police depts.

      3. Violent crime is lower because people are committing fewer crimes. Fewer crimes means fewer people being jailed. So we’re not “Jailing everybody in sight.”

        The fact that nearly 19 million people have concealed carry permits and an unknown number carry firearms without needing a permit is likely a contributing factor too. 7.3% of American adults have permits and that just keeps rising. It also explains why most mass shootings occur in “gun free zones”.

        More Guns = Less Crime.

    2. the dems are idiots.they don’t when to shut up.they started this crap shut them done. they do nothing same crap we’ve been hearing before he was elected.they embraced hate and encouraged it. they are hateful people .they all the left wanted confrontation they don’t condemn it but we have freedom of speech.stop whining get something done .stop dividing the people.

  2. It’s true that far-right white nationalists have posed an increasing threat in recent years, and that they are responsible for more ideologically motivated killings than other groups.

    Oh boy.

    1. He means that couple in Calif, and the gay night club shooter, and the Army base shooter and the two white boys in Bosto….., Uh, never mind.

      1. Hey now. He used the descriptor ideological!!! Those dont count!

      2. Hey, anti-Zionism is a White nationalist movement. Did you see that rep from Michigan? She looks like your average Albanian.

        1. Thing is the white nationalists love Israel, and think we all belong there. The liberals like the Jews, so long as we leave Israel and don’t act too Jewish.

    2. Rappers around the country the gauntlet has been dropped will you rise to the challenge and declare “Hold my beer!”?

      And I enjoy a little hip hop but you start doing this and guess who these laws will target by our “racist” police force?

      1. Something something foreseeable consequences something something not unintended.

        If your goal is to put lots and lots of young black men into American prisons, you may not be able to do better than to ban guns.

      2. Snoop just did a show at the U of Kansas and the university apologized because it had profanity and pole dancers.

        “Say perhaps we should invite this Snoop fellow. I have seen him on the Martha Stewart cooking show. I think it would be good clean entertainment for the students. Perhaps we can ask him to perform that “ABC” song from the Jackson 5. I like to boogie a bit myself you know.”

    3. Those 70 killed since 1995 (using a definition so broad it includes multiple minorities) is frightening.

    4. Robby can’t write an article like this without dropping at least one steaming turd in there somewhere.

  3. the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder

    They’re getting away with murder because by not aggressively banning speech they are contributing to the problem?

    Or is it…

    They’re getting away with murder because by selectively banning speech they aren’t doing enough to ban the bad actors?

    I don’t even know WTF Marantz’s beef is. He throws it out there like it should be obvious why everyone should hate FB in the context of his (stoopid) essay.

    1. His beef is that free speech is killing the New York Times. My beef is that it’s not killing it quickly enough.

      1. Ooh, ooh, ooh! I’m stealing that!

  4. “I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment…”

    Sure, just like Democrats don’t want to repeal the Second.

    1. Repeal or ignore, same difference for the Democrats.

      1. No, because there is a specific and difficult process to repeal.
        Ignore and chip away is the way of the beast.

    2. Well, they do want to repeal the first, too. It’s called “campaign finance reform.”

    3. They arent calling for an amendment… just a redefinition to make the right useless.

      https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/democrats-call-new-amendment-limit-first-amendment-rights

    4. “Congress could fund……..”

      Sigh. Yeah, that’ll help.

      Haha.

  5. >>while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks

    nooooooooooope.

  6. “It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC.”

    Or Pravda.

    1. Could a major media outlet be drumming up a moral panic in order to rent seek a federal subsidy for itself? Or is that just overly cynical?

    2. I wonder why people tend to view government funding as somehow “unbiased.” Whether it’s science or news, when a philanthropist or–even worse–customers fund it, it’s evil bias, assuming it’s on the other side. But when the state funds it, what? Is there seriously an assumption that the state has no interests of its own?

      1. It is a very strange idea. I mean, if we could trust the government to be unbiased, then the 1st Amendment is unnecessary.

        1. You’re assuming that elected officials never use censorship to benefit themselves directly, but only in response to desires of voters.

          But that itself is a corrupt use of censorship, too. Politicians happy to shut up people and groups a large majority favor silenced, in exchange for votes, as with any other thing.

          1. I think you misunderstand me. The existence of the 1st Amendment is evidence that we do not trust the elected officials to not benefit themselves by manipulating the law. It is the notion that the government is unbiased that does not fit into American pollical philosophy.

            1. I was pretty sure that the existence of the 2nd plainly states that we don’t trust the elected officials to not disarm the people and use a standing army against them.

      2. I suspect the response would be that, yes, the government can be biased, but at least it’s democratically accountable. Of course, in the next breath they’ll ponder what limits should be placed on democracy when the electorate chooses someone like Donald Trump. But I guess that was all the fault of Russian meddling and the undemocratic Electoral College.

    3. Remember how BBC news anchors stopped IRA violence? Because I don’t.

    4. “It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC.”

      I thought that’s what National Public Radio (npr) was.

      1. the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

        The USPS only “competes” with FedEx and U.P.S. because it gets massive government subsidies, and benefits from federal regulations that hamstring the other two carriers.

        1. Further, if you use USPS as a shipping agent and the shipment is lost, you are guaranteed to have lost the value of the product.
          You can send a lawyer to the post office with every piece of paper you have; not enough. Come back later with form XX44TT99…….

    5. “In the Truth there is no news, in the News there is no truth.”

      1. And when we’re gone from here,
        Our friends will be drinking all the beer.

  7. “In a New York Times op-ed headlined “Free Speech Is Killing Us,” Marantz writes that “noxious speech is causing tangible harm.” Citing the ideologically motivated killings in Charlottesville and El Paso, he warns that something must be done to prevent extremist speech from continuing to inspire violence.”

    I concur.

    Burn down the NY Times building.

    Then piss on the ashes.

    1. You’re okay with wasting piss?

      1. It shows some class and dignity, I think.

        1. arson being the most effective debate tool.

        2. More dignity than the Times deserves, if you ask me. Maybe some of the homeless folks from CA can be bused in to take a dump on the ashes?

    2. Eat a whole lot of salty food first, so that the piss will be salty enough.

    3. Nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

  8. Look, the NY times simply wants to be in charge of speech. They obviously know what is best for us, and have been bitter since this whole internet-social media thing challenged their self-appointed status as the top speech source.

    1. All the news that fits our narrative!

    2. I’m not even sure I trust the baseball standings in the NYT. They keep saying the Reds are going to make a comeback and they won’t even report on the Indians because…racist.

  9. In a New York Times op-ed headlined “Free Speech Is Killing Us,”…

    Because “People Are Saying Things I Don’t Like” is too whiny, I guess.

    1. And “I’m a little contemporary potato who fancies himself wise enough to entrust govenment with tyrannical powers” is too accurate.

    2. Exactly. Democrats have been fighting against freedom of speech for decades, because they want to control you and your speech. I’m reminded of “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me” from kindergarten. Democrats want to say certain speech harms people, so it must be banned (always with the victims looking to climb to the top rung of victim-hood claiming great harm from hateful words).

      These days, it’s Antifa using violence against conservative speakers, who say conservative hate speech harmed them, and they’re just defending themselves and exercising their freedom of speech (along with the baseball bats, and other weapons) to do it.

  10. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

    The BBC is a progressive propaganda network. Ugh!!

    230 made the internet great. So proggies want it gone.

    Government funded social network – that’s Red China style.

    This guy needs to be hung by his thumbs.

    1. Isn’t section 230 from the Communications Decency Act, not the DMCA?

  11. If the argument is that free speech protections must be curbed in order to stave off an epidemic of violence, then the argument should be heartily rejected. Domestically, our capacity for free speech has increased, but violence has not.

    Even if violence were exploding it would be wrong to curb speech. That fact that you entertain this argument indicates you are a statist at heart, Fruit Sushi.

  12. It’s pretty ironic for someone to use an outlet that only exists because of the 1st amendment to argue against the 1st amendment. Using a BBC model is especially idiotic.

    In a world where speech is violence, no one but the state may speak.

  13. The NYT author is a retard that came up with ideas that benefit them while totally skipping over the issue.

    The issue isn’t free speech. Free speech doesn’t exist on social media nor should it. Private companies own them. If FB doesn’t allow users to post anymore you still have free speech on the internet. Stroll on over to Godaddy and buy a domain.

    It’s connecting people. That’s the issue. Humans are incredibly flawed things. When you get just 10 flawed people together bad shit can happen.
    For instance, I’m a piece of shit that likes to watch babies die. Thanks to the internet I can convince people that vaccines are bad and will give your baby things like autism or butt AIDS. Stupid parents eat this shit up and I get my jollies. Remember measles in York County, OR? That was me. I did most of that naked from the waist down while smoking meth.
    Since the companies I use face zero threat for my actions they don’t bother verifying my identity. It’s pretty sweet.

  14. “In the year 2018, there were vastly more homicides in the city of Chicago (1,400 killings) than known homicides by domestic extremists anywhere in the country (50 killings).”

    This is extremely problematic phrasing. I learned in college any negative reference to “Chicago” (or “Detroit,” or “Baltimore”) is racial code language meaning “black people.” Even if that 1400 figure is technically correct it’s best not to mention it.

    1. How about minority-empowered urban community?

  15. Or, follow me here, we could restore free speech and ignore sensitive people with obvious mental problems.

  16. “It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC”
    And staff it with puppets and hideous talking heads in the interest of progress towards preliteracy.

  17. Fuck you, Marantz.

    Fuck you, Marantz.

    FUCK YOU, MARANTZ.

    Now when somebody punches you in your eminently punchable face, I will gladly take credit.

  18. More deaths have been caused by the Affordable care act than any “mass crime incidents”.

  19. “…Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy,…”

    This from one of the outfits pitching ‘the Russkis did it!’ fantasy for at least two years.
    When the NYT prints truth, it’s like Tony here; purely by accident.

  20. Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.

    From his perspective, he’s being honest. The conversation has been hijacked. The conversation used to be controlled by people like Marantz. Now it’s not.

    Peter Hitchens said about mass immigration that if most of the immigrants were competing for jobs as television producers, reporters, and journalists, that the media would probably take a different view of mass immigration.’

    In my opinion, this is proof of that. The rise of internet services that have given voice– and in some cases, significant voice to people with a webcam and an internet connection are in fact threatening the jobs of the high-salaried pundit class.

    Learn to code, Marantz.

  21. Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming.

    I’m sure the Trump administration would be happy to oblige such a national campaign.

    1. Or, you could just not use facebook or social media at all and instead of using news sites to tell you what a bill says or an FBI report you go and read it yourself on a government website. Once you start doing that you’ll stop reading the news stories and just read the source data because you realize how much they lie.

      Look at the way these people talk. It’s almost as if they think social media is necessary. It alone is viewed as a right to them. They’re fucking spoiled.

  22. Rich coming from the fricken New York fricken Times that employs a quadruplet of racists in Sarah fricken Jeong, Tom fricken Wright-Piersanti, Gina fricken Cerelus, and Jazmine fricken Hughes.

    A paper that employed a fraudster in Jayson Blair, a plagiarist in Jill Abramson and an incompetent editor in James Dao.

    And free speech is the problem?

    It’s the Bizarro Clown World and the NYT are the stars of the show.

  23. Shorter NYT: Rrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee……………………….

  24. “The New York Times Says ‘Free Speech Is Killing Us.'” — NYT says no such thing; it’s an op-ed, not an editorial.

    1. Goody! A pedant!
      Are you happy?

    2. They gave it a platform. By the new rules that means they are 100% behind it.

      Not to mention the lack of any attempt at a rebuttal

  25. People shouldn’t read yellow journalism any more than they should eat yellow snow.

  26. Statists at Reason criticizing other statists at the NYT.

  27. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me”?

  28. Well stated:

    The Times, Post, and other left-leaning media have embarked on a concerted effort to snuff any free speech that counters their elitist agenda, on the theory that it directly leads to violence.

    Hardly a week goes by without a complaint alleging that the Republic is under attack and its existence threatened by social media.

    Which in light of the inflammatory headers and content of their opinion pieces is nothing if hypocritical.

    …not to mention the “cash flow” problems caused by the competition.

  29. The assertion that “Free Speech Is Killing Us” is absolutely true…if the “Us” referred to is the New York Times. The Left’s growing inability to control Teh Narrative, c combined with their cynical usage of the legacy Media, is reducing the Times to a small, provincial newspaper with shrinking relevance and revenues.

    Good.

    1. It couldn’t happen to a nicer newspaper — or whatever they’re calling themselves these days.

  30. Mr. Soave, you said

    “In the year 2018, there were vastly more homicides in the city of Chicago (1,400 killings) than known homicides by domestic extremists anywhere in the country (50 killings).”

    But the USA article you link to says “Chicago recorded more than 1,400 homicides and 6,200 shooting incidents in 2016 and 2017. ”

    So that 1,400 is over 2 years, not 1.

  31. So, Robby, you say that “The New York Times” says this, huh?

    Wouldn’t it be more accurate for you to say that Marantz says this in The New York Times? You do eventually say this, but that makes the headline all the more misleading.

  32. Should we note that OUR free speech is killing us, but the NYT free speech is just peachy?

  33. It is FBI Uniform Crime Reports, not United Crime Reports.

  34. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Heres what I’ve been doing…  ,,,

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin

  35. I think they meant free speech is killing their propaganda for hire bottom line. People sharing the truth have that effect on lies.

    We do need legal clarification of illegal speech to challenge the constitutionality of it. Otherwise speaking truth to power will be interpreted as illegal and unjustly persecuted more than it already is.

    Speech is not thought. It is an action with consequences.

    Lying is already necessarily illegal in court and contracts to ensure both economic and legal stability in society.

    Lying is coercion. It coerces people under the authority of truth to make decisions that are not in their best interests.

    Libertarians should agree that lying should be illegal.

    1. Libertarians agree that fraud should be illegal. Most lying is not fraud.

      1. You’re in favour of coercion then which I’ve proven lying is.

    2. “Libertarians should agree that lying should be illegal.”

      I think it should remain legal to be wrong about something. Who determines what the truth is? Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for claiming the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. People viewed that as a lie.

      1. We can either demonstrate the truth with evidence of logic and science, or we can’t. It okay to admit you don’t know.

        If Bruno had evidence of scientific proof he should not have been persecuted. He should have been thanked.

    3. So you want this to be illegal:
      “Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?”
      “No, dear.”

      Boom, send that liar to jail, right?

      “Are you planning a surprise party for my birthday?”
      “Nope”

      To jail with you!

      “Lying is already necessarily illegal in court ”
      Well, not exactly. It has to be material. If you get asked what you ate for breakfast on a given day and it has no material effect on the case, you can legally lie your arse off.

      “…and contracts …”

      That is called “fraud”. It is more than just lying.

      Then we have “lies of omission.” How about those? Does that not have the same consequence according to your assertion? Guess what you have now. Compelled speech. Even in court you can avoid compelled speech by way of your fifth amendment rights. But I suppose under your regime you couldn’t allow that because a lie by omission is just as much an action as a lie of commission.

      “Lying is coercion.”
      LIAR! To jail with you!

      Coercion is the act of using threats of, or actual, violence and force to intimidate someone into committing an act against their will or avoiding one they would otherwise take. Your claim that lying is coercion is contrary to the legal and accepted definitions of coercion. Therefore you lied, and under your own assertions should be prosecuted for it. Now to demonstrate again why your definition is bogus:

      “Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?”
      “No, dear.”
      “Ok, I’ll buy them then.”

      Nobody in their right mind will say the purchaser was coerced into buying those jeans. But your claim does.

      1. Maybe the fat bitch should go on a diet if she wants to look good.

        Maybe the fat bitch has you coerced to lie.

        Maybe you’re a coward.

        People in their right minds don’t lie to themselves.

      2. Here is the definition of coerce at dictionary.com

        “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition”

        Do you deny it?

      3. The silence is deafening.

        It demonstrates a lack of principles.

  36. “If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.”

    Wow, talk about ignorance. First, the USPS isn’t the competitor to FedEx and UPS, that is precisely backward. Does Marantz think the USPS is a government response to those?

    Second, just how does the USPS “compete” with them? Does FedEx or UPS have permission to deliver items to your mailbox? Nope, only the USPS by law does. Now ask yourself, how does that carry over to online media companies? It doesn’t. In order for a Government Facebook to exist and “compete” the government would have to start prohibiting and limiting “access” to the private companies’ service.

    Consider the protections the USPS has. in addition to not allowing private companies to deliver mail to your mailbox, stealing your mail is a federal crime while thieves can steal your package deliveries from your porch with no federal statute applied. Then we have the subsidization of the USPS by taxes and political protection from closing down useless post offices.

    “Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly.”

    Sure, and how would that make a difference – precisely? In a world where people will whine about being looked at, filled with people who can’t see past their own ideological coke bottle glasses, how can we trust hundreds of thousands of people to “get it right”? Perhaps he should look t history where we have had censors and how “well” that worked out?

    “Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence.”

    And how, exactly, should we be accepting the claim that a *lawyer* is an expert on the topic of psychology? Actual psychologists have shown time and again that the supposed link isn’t there. The history of that goes back easily (and much further) to the Religiously motivated Republicans banning music and books on the same grounds – and actual psychological research showed the supposed connection wasn’t there.

  37. Because letting the deplorables enjoy too much freedom might derail our plans for them.
    Hint, there would be some sort of reeducation camps involved.

  38. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com

  39. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference…

    He says before listing all the ways he wants government to interfere in speech.

    Not to mention that all his suggestions sound like make-work programs that don’t address what he sees as the root problem of inflammatory speech.

  40. The New York Times Says ‘Free Speech Is Killing Us.’ . . .

    The New York Times is correct but not as they imply. They are implying that with “free speech” being protected by the constitution it can not be prevented or limited to certain words. Without the constitutional protection on speech certain words and phrases could be made illegal to be used. When that happens by careful selection of the words and phrases made illegal those who are selecting these words and phrases could control the evolution of society so as to control it to a certain end. When that happens then freedom is truly lost. If words are causing crimes because when certain people hear these words they react violently to them it is not the words that are or should be a crime but the reaction to the words that are the crime. Concentrate on those who commit the crimes

  41. They must come up with elaborate conspiracy theories, because the truth is they are deathly afraid of people noticing that the left can’t stop lying. Radicalization just means noticing things. You see this with feminists trying to smear mra’s and red pill types, they have to frame with smears because dealing with the facts they just lose. The left are the new church, and as before, they fear the heretics.

Please to post comments