POPc Participant Sean's Post:
We can think of freedom of speech as a continuous line. At one end, absolutely everything can be said. At the other end, absolutely nothing can be said. Different societies place themselves at different ends of the spectrum based on what they deem as appropriate. This is what they define as their “freedom of Speech”.
I say that our society should, and for the most part does, draw its point on the line where people are free to say what they want in public spaces but they are not directly influencing someone towards illegal or violent behavior. Fro instance, a person is free to write hate speech on a blog or internet forum, but they cannot directly recruit others to start a riot. An organization is free to speak negatively about Muslims (racist, xenophobic, etc.) but they cannot hold a sign up sheet for members to go commit acts of violence against Muslims. If someone of a certain (unstable) mindset hears the freely spoken hate-speech on the street corner and decides to go commit an act of violence, that is on them. They have been given a variety of sources to draw their own conclusions on what should be done. They have freedom of choice. If someone on a street corner pulls another person in to commit a specific act of violence, the person pulled in is under the influence of direct coercion, not exercising their free will. That is where I think we draw our point on the line. If driver hits someone crossing the street at a crosswalk, the hitter is guilty of a crime. If a driver is cut-off and has to swerve to avoid an accident and through the swerving they hit someone crossing at a crosswalk, the cut-off driver is not guilty of a crime. The driver had numerous choices to make (they could have crashed into the cut-off driver, for example) and simply chose one that ends with a bystander getting hit crossing the street. The driver may have probable cause for saying that they may not have hit the person at the crosswalk under normal circumstances, but that is a different argument.
I think people get confused when they mistake social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter as public forums open to Freedom of Speech restrictions and benefits. Social media outlets are private companies. They determine where they get to define their point on the freedom of speech line, separate from where any one society gets to define its point on the freedom of speech line. Social media outlets are choosing their point on the freedom of speech line at the locations that fit in with their best interest. (‘Best interest’ here can be defined by any number of factors, not just money.)
There might be an argument that over time our society has begun to outsource our ideas of freedom of speech to algorithms run by search companies and social media outlets by letting them choose what is right for us to see and not see, but I think this is separate from where our society sets our point on the freedom of speech line.