Everything has limits. Free speech is never absolute. It’s a spectrum. Everyone draws a line somewhere, they just don’t always admit it. There will be exceptions and practicalities for even the “free speech absolutists”.
Some people and orgs consider themselves bound by the law, by local jurisdiction. Some are bound by morals. Others will bend the rules, but they will probably still exist in some sort of ethical framework.
Where is the line for you? To name but a few:
- personal attacks
- ad hominem
- shaming
- vulgarity
- dog whistles
- outmoded language
- slurs
- swearing and offensive language
- targeted comedy
- spicy memes
- causing offence
- trolling
- toxic content
- bullying
- abuse
- harassment
- hate speech
- doxxing
- anonymity
- attack on privacy
- attack on security
- Streisand effect
- attack on personal safety
- attack on family safety
- attack on child safety
- threats
- death threats
- fake news
- fabricated information
- mis and disinformation
- psyops
- rabbit holes
- dark rabbit holes
- conspiracy theories
- provably false conspiracy theories
- post-truth
- dangerous, addictive and harmful conspiracy theories
- meme politics
- meme conspiracy theories
- GenAI
- AI slop
- AI chatbot as evidence
- AI as appeal to authority
- Google as evidence
- Wikipedia as evidence
- non peer reviewed research
- unscientific research
- pseudoscience
- quacks
- herbal remedies
- alternative medicine
- antivaxxers
- wellness over health
- “we are the media now” social media voices
- influencer culture
- influencers over journalists
- misleading info
- incomplete info
- bias
- access journalism
- PR puff pieces
- hoaxes
- scams
- spam
- dark web
- conspiracy theory cults
- cults
- harmful to health
- harmful to mental health
- self-harm
- suicide
- suicide and death cults
- racism
- prejudice
- violence
- extreme violence
- graphic violence
- guns
- knives
- weapons
- drugs
- illegal drugs
- opioids
- harmful, addictive and destructive drugs
- addiction
- alcohol
- alcoholism
- gambling
- gambling ads
- online gambling
- gambling addiction
- fat shaming
- junk food ads
- advertising
- subliminal advertising
- criminal activity
- fraud
- online fraud
- bank fraud
- wire fraud
- phishing
- QR code phishing
- social engineering
- viruses
- malware
- dishonesty
- abuse of power
- coercion
- coercive control
- organised crime
- incitement
- censorship
- opposition
- dissent
- silencing dissent
- protest
- radical protest
- extremist protest
- call to arms
- anarchy
- national security
- attack on democracy
- attack on elections and democratic systems
- coups
- propaganda
- warfare
- psychological warfare
- war crimes
- crimes against humanity
- genocide
- far-left
- far-right
- nationalism
- authoritarianism
- fascism
- radical left
- extremism
- political extremism
- religious extremism
- indoctrination
- radicalisation
- terrorism
- trafficking
- sexual harassment
- sex
- erotica
- soliciting
- prostitution
- adult content
- adult user content
- adult content creators
- pornography
- big porn: major porn studios
- long tail porn: unregulated internet porn
- user-created pornography
- extreme and dangerous pornography
- sexual abuse
- CSAM
- locally illegal activity
- universally illegal activity
I’ve just written these down from my head right now.
If you and others argue for the legitimacy of all of these categories of speech and content, please, with honesty, tell me which and why.
I’ve been studying the internet for a while; I’ve seen a snapshot of the vast spectrum of behaviour and content. My life’s work is to make the net safe. To make the world safe.
While there is always universally abhorrent and dangerous content to be removed, blocked and banned, this work is not about censoring free speech. It’s about recognising that free speech has checks and balances. And for the grey area, it’s about people, families and orgs being able to make their own informed trust and safety decisions, once they are have all the info.