I've been meaning to write something about Speaker’s Corner for quite some time as I'm frequently walking past it on Sundays but I am glad that @HKesvani beat me to it.
melmagazine.com/en-us/story/ho…
melmagazine.com/en-us/story/ho…
His piece is a fascinating glimpse of what absolute free speech can look like (as a frequent visitor I can tell you it's not pretty).
And the unfolding dynamic between the physical presence of the speakers in Hyde Park and their sometimes very large social media following (as well as the concomitant professionalisation) is a PhD thesis yet to be written.
I am also wondering if Speaker's Corner maybe holds a lesson about how the media should deal with fringe groups & views, conspiracies and the like.
No one (literally no one) grants these people and their often really crazy views any attention (apart from their devoted following). No journalist, no news org, no one. Why would they, right? After all, most of what they say is nothing you'd want to promote in any way.
For some reason, however, this rule does not seem to apply when it comes to right-wingers, racists, conspiracy theorists, zealots, and fringe groups in other contexts. Strange, isn't it?
Many others (e.g. @BostonJoan, @wphillips49, @beccalew) have made this argument before: Don't give oxygen to these people because you risk mainstreaming their ideas.
In this context, Speaker's Corner is the metaphorical mirror into which the media has to take a long hard look. If you don't grant these people attention here, why would you elsewhere?
@threadreaderapp unroll
