If I were to take to social media to explain how to perform brain surgery, there’s a fair chance no one would care. You see, I’m not a brain surgeon. I’m not even a physician. There is no reason in the world why anyone would think that I have a clue what I was talking about. So while I might spew utter nonsense, no one would care because it’s coming from me. Wise choice.
Why then would anyone care what Candace Owens, who was coincidentally born the same year as my daughter, has to say about COVID-19? And yet, when she twitted about it, it was deemed to be of sufficient importance that it got her kicked out.
Granted she has 2.2 million followers, but isn’t that more a commentary on 2.2 million followers? It’s no one’s fault but theirs that they chose poorly.
The question isn’t whether Twitter has the legal right to suspend Owens. Of course they do. The question is why. The rationale for her suspension is that she was spreading misinformation, pushing people to ignore the health mandates of government and engage in risky behavior. Right or wrong, is challenging government’s dictates a bad thing?
Yes, lawyer, Columbia prawf and New York Times contributor Tim Wu contends.
What is more important: freedom of speech, or freedom from propaganda?
He deleted the twit after it was poorly received, but it was part of a twitstorm rolling in from the left.
One characteristic of the speech environment in our era is that, in the formation of public opinion, the public debate does not reach an end-point. Instead, the dissenters keep on fighting and are encouraged to do so, when in another era they'd be crackpots
— Tim Wu (@superwuster) May 2, 2020
He’s not wrong that the arguing never ends, even though decisions must eventually be made. Whether it’s Michigan Gov. Whitmer’s call to remain in lockdown or the Supreme Court’s decision that the Second Amendment establishes a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the debate goes on, arguments persist and people who disagree with the decision get to express their disagreement, ad nauseam.
Is this a flaw or feature of free speech? Of course, the buried lede in Wu’s position isn’t that the argument never ends, but that arguments by people he deems “crackpots” are allowed to continue in the same way arguments by worthier voices, like his.
Losing Candace Owens’ deep insights will not spell the end of coronavirus insight, mostly because she’s got no more to offer than you do. She is the walrus, Paul. But the argument that her voice shouldn’t be afforded the same opportunity as Wu’s reflects a damning perspective from the woke academy.
Even crackpots get to express their opinions. If anything, Tim Wu should be thankful for that.
In the meantime, Candace Owns will be a martyr to the cause for having been suspended from the Twitters and Mike Masnick’s Streisand Effect will kick in to cause her directions for brain surgery to be spread across the land. That certainly isn’t going to help anyone’s frontal lobe.
No comments:
Post a Comment