Free speech: fact-checking vs. censorship

1
Free speech: fact-checking vs. censorship

Editor, The Beacon:

Free speech is a basic principle of democracy. It is also a complex, multidimensional concept requiring careful, thoughtful discussion and far too complex to address here. In the face of “removing fact-checkers” from a public communication platform, I believe it is important to differentiate between fact-checking and censoring discourse.

There are multiple types of censorship. In its most simplistic form,

however, there are two: societal (you can’t say that because it’s not nice) and political (you can’t say that because I say you can’t – “I” being the person with the most power).

Fact-checking doesn’t have anything to do with “you can’t.” Fact-checkers simply say: you can say what you want, just know that I will differentiate between truth and lie.

Freedom of speech says that while you shouldn’t say “Haitians eat cats” because it might hurt people and isn’t nice, you have the right to say it. Within that parameter, fact-checkers say “we have no evidence of that behavior, we believe it to be a lie.”

Freedom of speech says you have the right to say that the killer in

New Orleans illustrates how illegal immigrants are increasing our

crime rate. Fact-checkers say that since the person in question is a U.S.-born military veteran, that statement makes no sense and is false.

Anyone who hides behind fact-checking as a ban on free speech is either a coward; ignorant of definition; or consciously and blatantly diminishing a basic principle of democracy. That’s my opinion.

Georgeanna Kiser

DeLand

No posts to display

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here