15 year or so ago, I’d have agreed totally.

I think, though, the world has changed. The effects of globalisation, the concentration of wealth, and the easy access to the mass communication, mean that wealth is able to buy propaganda on an unprecedented scale and reach an unprecedented audience with no accountability whatsoever.

It’s not a stretch, for instance, to picture bot-farms funded by fossil-fuel money run campaigns to groom potential terrorists or people traffickers in order to politically damage governments of other countries who are looking to meaningfully transition their nation’s energy profile.

I also think the traditional definition of ‘free speech’ is no longer relevant. Should bot farms or their funders be free to ‘speak’ if that speech is to incite violence and destabilise governments and societies elsewhere?

Should tech $billionaires be free to secretly tweak algorithms to favour political and corporate partners? What does restricting free speech even mean in this case? Is the tech $billionaire guilty of restricting speech by causing unwanted speech to be heard and seen less that speech he wishes to be heard? Or would the authorities who restrained the tech $billionaire’s algorithms be guilty of restricting his speech?

I don’t think it’s a simple as it once was, especially given so much speech is no longer produced and created by human beings, but by the automation, algorithms, and artificial intelligence in response to market demand.

Agreed martz. One US judge said just that, that Musk’s strategy of lawsuits was about ‘punishing the defendents for their speech’.

This censorious nonsense has set in as a default editorial mode ever since the Rundle fiasco, and it has trashed Crikey’s brand. Truly, the Higgins-Lehrmann matter continues to wreak great collateral damage.

1. Restrictions overwhelmingly favour the rich and powerful e.g. defamation laws, employment contracts and NDAs;
2. The ‘left’ have more to be angry about so shouldn’t be restricted in expressing that anger e.g. climate protestors;
3. The police and judges tend to be conservative which is why e.g. climate protestors organising a Zoom call get 5 years in prison;
4. The ‘right’ are far more comfortable with the hypocrisy around defending their own free speech v restricting others because they have a long history of being part of the establishment that imposes censorship e.g. religions;
5. When the ‘left’ tries to silence the ‘right’ they create martyrs and unite the ‘right’;
6. Meanwhile restrictions on free speech on the ‘left’ tend result in self-censorship and division (and pushing people to the ‘right’) – how many people have been pushed to the ‘right’ for expressing unpopular opinions?
7. The ‘left’ should be more open to left field and ‘dangerous’ ideas if it wants to challenge the status quo;
8. Restrictions on free speech and concern for social faux pas are particularly problematic for traditional blue collar workers that form the base for the ‘traditional left’;
9. Denying speech means denying the problems that lead to the speech and denying problems (as opposed to trying to understanding and deal with them) is not something the ‘left’ or ‘progressives’ should be doing if we are to achieve….progress;
10. On the ‘modern left’ culture wars and attacks on free speech (e.g. the social media giants) are generally used to mask pretty conservative views when it comes to economics which is the main cause of the problems in the world (see 9).