Free speech must be for all, not just those whose words we approve of. Those who are thoughtful, analytical, and informed must speak out against the quacks and charlatans, but that does not mean silencing their voices. Children must be taught the discipline of literary analysis to help them distinguish between BS and facts. Freedom of speech must be defended, not decried.
I'm totally against restrictions on freedom of speech.
I'm just lamenting the freedom's having been turned against us.
Speaking out against quacks and charlatans, and teaching children to distinguish between BS and facts is tried and true methodology, and I'm sure it's still effective in confined situations, but between our being at a point at which the quacks and charlatans very often sound more intriguing and captivating than the voice of reason, and the Internet has so blurred the border between fact and fiction that it's almost impossible for anybody, regardless of who or what they are, to sound any more credible than they do, I doubt that it's still got any widespread applicability.
The quacks and charlatans are the Pied Piper, and the Internet is their pipe.
Maybe what really needs to be restricted is freedom to listen?
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.
In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
