-you can say Fire if there is a fire.
true. But if there isn't, then your speech is a crime. Thus confirming that this is an example where free speech is limited.
-Women's advocacy teaches women to yell fire instead of rape since people don't react to claims of rape.
that is true. Because most police aren't going to charge a victim of sexual assault over this. But is a crime they could be charged with (in the right circumstances).
Similarly if you say Biden is corrupt publicly and tending toward authoritarianism, and he is, then you are justified and not an actual insurrectionist (which is a word that is getting fast overused like racist use to be).
no he's not. He hasn't done anything "authoritarian" that multiple other presidents (including trump) didn't also do. And what "treason" is would certainly be tricky one to define.
We have functioning tort laws to discourage actual harmful speech without arbitrary government intervention. I trust courts and juries over bought and paid for politicians.
There are already laws that limit free speech. This isn't some new concept i'm suggesting. It is how the law works right now. You do not, and have never had, completely free speech.
I get that, but the ratioing, the likes and dislikes, seem to have a way for many of the social media platforms to self-regulate what is acceptable.
what social media platform has ever made that work?
I particularly like the community guidelines and community notes on Twitter to push back on corporate propaganda narratives. Outsourcing the role of "light censorship" to the users themselves.
I'm guessing you mean since musk took over? Twitter has been going downhill hard since then. Filling up with right wing trolls, people calling for violence, antisemitism etc. The idea that users can do "light censorship" as a replacement for moderators is a joke. And twitter is steadily declining and likely headed for bankruptcy unless something changes. Their revenues are down like 60% since musk took over. The value of the company has fallen by half.
