,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting thread from @_HelenDale: NB she is very careful to make clear the gaps in her own knowledge about what happened to her and why, and is not throwing accusations around - she is, I think, just trying to raise a general concern.
Standing back a bit, it seems to me that much of the current debate about free speech involves access to “platforms”: places which allow the speaker to project their voice beyond eg a self-run blog that few read. They could be TV programmes, lectures at prominent universities etc
The concerns here, it seems to me, aren’t so much about the extent to which, in abstract, there should be boundaries on what you can say without attracting the attention of the criminal law (the traditional concern of free speech supporters) as about power and accountability.
Who decides who gets onto those platforms? Broadcasters? Audiences? Others on the platform?
And what criteria - given scarcity of platforms - should they use to allocate space on the platforms?
And how - and to whom - should they be accountable for the application of those criteria?
I don’t find those questions easy, though my instinct on criteria is the JS Mill one - to allow as many flowers as possible to bloom, while ensuring some kind of fair balance (and avoiding the temptation to over-weight extreme voices representing no one, for entertainment value).
But they seem to me to be the questions to ask.
