I used to be much more of a free-speech absolutist. It wasn't til I started reading about how genocides start that that started to change for me.
There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself.
After all, if there wasn't power in speech, none of this would matter; there would be no restrictions on speech anywhere if it didn't threaten someone.
Even in free-speech absolutists, there's often agreement that direct incitements to violence should be off-limits, and why? Because speech moves people to act.
I haven't often seen the position that incitements to violence should also be protected speech, though I'm sure those people are there -- the question to them for me would be, what are you trying to advance or protect against with that position?
The question I'd also ask is: if you want to say that speech such as calls to genocide should also be protected, how is that advancing society, especially for the targets of that? The marketplace of ideas doesn't seem to do a good job protecting them, so...what's the solution there?
Controlling speech in order to prevent violence does not work when the people carrying out the violence control the institutions. In your Rwandan example the Rwandan government could not be trusted to censor their own goals. The situations where this works are much rather and smaller because it is about preventing violence that doesn't have major backing.
Violence is one solution to a given problem. Sometimes problems are worse than violence needed to fix them. Ideally a non violent solution is found instead (changing system from within, peaceful activism, etc). But non-violent solutions are only viable if speech is unrestricted. You have to convince enough people that things need change for society to flip on the issue and eventually fix it. By keeping speech free you are preserving the option. Otherwise you are left with 2 choices: violence or status quo.
Free speech is a tool for reducing need for violence. That's why direct incitement to violence is usually not protected -- it goes against the whole point.
If you want a tech solution to misleading speech and outright lies though, then mandate all publications of debunked speech to publish links to rebuttals, without having to remove original content.
"Those Three Shocking Ways Vaccines Cause Mice Tails To Fall Off Will Shock You!!! [Five Factual Claims This Article Gets Wrong <link>]"
There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself.
If you're concerned about the "pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups" then you should be paying keen attention to the normalization of political intimidation and violence in the past several years.
The fact that the media have been giving groups tacit support, by not or minimally covering their assaults and vandalism, while even giving them positive spin, should raise some concern.
I haven't often seen the position that incitements to violence should also be protected speech
They should not be. "Punch a Nazi" -- despite the vileness of the purported targets -- shouldn't be allowed. "Milkshaking" is incitement to assault. The fact that Twitter allows those to continue shows a groupthink bias at operation there.
There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself.
After all, if there wasn't power in speech, none of this would matter; there would be no restrictions on speech anywhere if it didn't threaten someone.
Even in free-speech absolutists, there's often agreement that direct incitements to violence should be off-limits, and why? Because speech moves people to act.
I haven't often seen the position that incitements to violence should also be protected speech, though I'm sure those people are there -- the question to them for me would be, what are you trying to advance or protect against with that position?
The question I'd also ask is: if you want to say that speech such as calls to genocide should also be protected, how is that advancing society, especially for the targets of that? The marketplace of ideas doesn't seem to do a good job protecting them, so...what's the solution there?