The problem with liberal defences of free speech is that they don't go nearly far enough, to the point where they are an active impediment to understanding. Many people cannot speak freely without endangering their livelihoods.
Those who work everyday in the speech factories depend on the support of editors and owners who can fire or sideline them at any time, with little or no difficulty. Free speech defenders in the mainstream know this, but don't usually mention it.
If your opinions and assumptions don't sit comfortably with the interests of owners and editors you are unlikely to be 'free' to address large audiences regularly. If you have democratic instincts you are unlikely to find a comfortable perch in the big media.
The left's response must be to insist on the democratic principle of equality-in-speech - the goal of policy is to establish a tolerably even distribution of power to shape public discourse and the distribution of knowledge. This means taking media reform seriously.
At the moment most of us have little or no speech-power. The few who dominate public speech are themselves the servants of the very rich, or of politically vulnerable institutions like the BBC, which are run by the very rich. And, well, here we are.
Here's a chilling threat to freedom of speech that didn't get as much attention as it deserved. It isn't hard to find other examples. Just talk to someone who has a job.
theguardian.com/society/2020/a…
theguardian.com/society/2020/a…
Yes, I would like to cancel a communications regime that is structurally dishonest and will get us all killed. No, that does not make me a totalitarian. It makes me a democrat.
