Thread by @JoelKatz

I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist. But I want to explain one are where I'm not a free speech absolutist. That has to do with attempting to prevent willing speakers from reaching willing listeners. 1/8

Now this isn't a legal issue at all. Private censorship is absolutely legal, and should be. But it is a moral and philosophical issue. Part of the notion of freedom of expression is that willing speakers engaging willing listeners is an good thing. 2/8

The best response to bad speech is good speech, not trying to stop the bad speech. There are, of course, several obvious exceptions. One is when the bad speech chases away good speech -- like people using the n-word on Twitter. 3/8

Another is when the bad speech harasses unwilling listeners such as when crazy people yell at shoppers at a mall. And this means, at least to me, that there's a huge philosophical difference between these three positions: 4/8

1) I want to see fewer Nazis on Twitter.
2) I want Twitter to make it harder for Nazis to communicate with people who want to hear them and who might be influenced.
3) Twitter would be a better place for discussion if there was less Nazi content in feeds
5/8

I have no philosophical objections to 1 or 3 at all. But I do have philosophical issues with 2. One issue is that exposure to bad speech is often good. If not for social media, I'd have a hard time believing there are modern Nazis. 6/8

It's important that people understand that there's still evil in this world and that evil people are their neighbors and countrymen. There's huge risk this spills over to speech we will later realize was good and we reduce the ability for either side to persuade the other. 7/8

And there's value in people truly feeling free to express themselves. But this is an area where I am absolutely not an absolutist. In this non-legal context, it is perfectly reasonable to weigh the value of real freedom of expression against other goods and other harms. 8/8