Free speech is precious. We are guaranteed free speech in our United States Constitution, and the US Supreme Court struggles to determine exactly what constitutes protected speech. Over the last 100 years, several cases have tried to define what is and what is not protected.
Facebook has removed posts that don’t meet certain criteria under the pretext of misinformation. Is this a violation of the concept of free speech? To my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has not tackled this quasi-private-public platform, and it should.
My last post regarding Dr. Jeffrey Barke’s alternate viewpoint on Covid-19 drew reproach by Facebook with a snipe over my post directing the viewer to:
“Visit the COVID-19 Information Center for vaccine resources. Get Vaccine Info.”
Yes, an alternate viewpoint, but why is this necessary? Dr. Brake says that he is not anti-vaccination but only that the public should be aware of alternatives.
I guess I should not be upset; after all, isn’t Facebook just providing another alternate viewpoint on the Covid-19 fiasco?