"Free Speech Is Killing Us"

If there's any value that Americans seem to hold onto most dearly, it's freedom of speech.  It's a right enshrined in our Constitution and many Americans held up as heroes are celebrated for their sharing of profound ideas through their speech.

But when can speech be dangerous?  For example, the "loner gunman who killed innocents was radicalized on-line" is a  depressing news story that seems to happen every 6 months or so -- if not sooner -- in our news cycle.  Stories like this raise the question, "Are there tools at our disposal today (social media platforms, in particular) that should be reigned in with regard to what kind of speech they allow?"

These are some of the questions Andrew Marantz explores in his editorial from this weekend's New York Times.  His article is titled, "Free Speech Is Killing Us," and this is one of the quotes that caught my eye: "I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms.  What I'm arguing against is paralysis.  We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks.  And we can take steps to mitigate those risks."

Marantz then goes on to list some examples of what the government and private sector can do to mitigate the risks of what he calls "unchecked speech" (CLICK HERE if you'd like to read his editorial).

So here some questions to consider: should private social media companies feel a stronger urge to reign in offensive speech?  And what might a social media company deem as "offensive?"  How does one draw the line?  Finally, if any of you out there are in favor of government regulation of hate speech on social media platforms, what's your reasoning for this kind of action?