I think what Twitter and X have done with community notes, I think is just a better program. Rather than having a small number of fact checkers, you get the whole community to weigh in. When people usually disagree on something, tend to agree on how they're voting on a note, that's a good sign to the community that this is, there's actually like a broad consensus on this and then you show it. And you are showing more information, not less. Right. So you're not using the fact check as a signal to show less, you're using the community note to provide real context, and show additional information. So I think that's better.
The Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It's like, all right, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There are times when if there's an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control. So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of Covid.
In the beginning [of covid] it kind of seemed like, okay we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this. But when it went from you know, two weeks to flatten the curve, to you know like in the beginning it was like, okay there aren't enough masks. Masks aren't that important. To then it's like oh no you have to wear a mask, and you know like everything was shifting around. It just became very difficult to follow. And this really hit the most extreme, I'd say during the Biden administration when they were trying to roll out the vaccine program.
Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse. And it's like these documents are, it's all kind of out there. ... The emails are published. It's all kind of out there. And they're like, and basically it just got to this point where we were like, no we're not going to take down things that are true, that's ridiculous. ... We just said no. We're not going to take down humor and satire. We're not going to take down things that are true. And then at some point, I guess, I don't know, it flipped a bit. I mean Biden when he gave some statement at some point. I don't know if it was a press conference or to some journalist where he basically was like these guys are killing people. And, I don't know. Then like all these different agencies and branches of government basically just started investigating and coming after our company. It was brutal. It was brutal.
1984 is like an instruction manual. It's like it shows you how things can go that way with "wrong speak" and with bizarre distortion of facts. And when it comes down to it, in today's day and age, the way people get information is through your platform [Facebook], through X. This is how people are getting information. They're getting information for YouTube. They're getting information from a bunch of different sources now, and you can't censor that if it's real, legitimate information because it's not ideologically convenient for you.
A good sign as to whether there is free speech is, "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like?"
And it's damn annoying when someone you don't like says something you don't like. That is a sign of a healthy functioning free speech situation.
I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic and anything that results in the suppression of free speech.
Its bizarre that we've come to this point where, like free speech used to be a left or liberal value. And yet we see from, in the quotes left, a desire to actually censure.
I really can't emphasize this enough. We must protect free speech, and free speech only matters, its only relevant when its someone you don't like saying something you don't like, because obviously free speech that you like, its easy.
A dictatorship means muzzles all round and consequently stultification. Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.
There was a time when we dared not rustle a whisper.
For a country to have a great writer is like having a second government. That is why no regime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones.
Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life.
There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development.
The difference between then and now? Many of the ideas currently being protected by free speech rights run contrary to progressive ideology. Over the last 13 years, the Supreme Court “has been far more likely to embrace free-speech arguments concerning conservative speech than liberal speech,” the Times said.
I'll say what I want to say, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it.
You can’t get to the truth without freedom of speech, without active debate.
We can disagree about how to define marriage and whether someone can transition from male to female but still agree that the government should not force anyone to express a message they don’t believe.
In these days of growing anger and social upheaval, civility is what my neighbors and millions of Americans are looking for. Coercion is not.
We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.
If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas for more wise men reading more good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all — except the censor.
The truth is, a government that respects free speech rights does not spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to figure out ways to limit, combat or research the speech of its citizens.
I'm an American, and most of the time proud of it. Even when I am displeased with what my country is doing, I am still an American who is displeased. And fortunately, being an American, I don't have to whimper, I don't have to whine, I have the right to protest, and I like that.
I still feel you should rock the boat. And if you're not in it, you should turn it over. But not unthinkingly. Protest without serious consideration is dangerous. You have to back up what you say. But once you find the truth, you ought to be prepared to stand on the street corner and use all your gifts to right the wrong.
One of the fundamental rights this country is founded on was freedom of speech, and we have a long tradition of nonviolent, peaceful protest. Those who exercise the right to peacefully express themselves should not be demonized or ostracized.
I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
One law professor at Georgetown, Louis Michael Seidman, who used to defend free speech now sees his prior position as a mistake. “When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” Seidman said. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, goes further still, declaring that free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice because it is now being used to defend ideas she finds distressing. “Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” writes MacKinnon, who teaches such courses as “Evolution of Gender Crimes” and “Sex Equality.”
Speech does not need to be intelligent or compelling to be worthy of protection.
In reading through the New York Times piece it becomes abundantly clear that many liberals really never cared about “free speech” as such, but rather sought protection specifically for progressive ideas and behaviors. As soon as conservatives started demanding the same protections for their speech, it no longer seemed like such a good idea.
No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
One person's insult is another person's sincerely-held belief. That's the way free speech works. To suggest that we can shield kids from every possible offense or hurt feeling isn't just unrealistic, it's wrong. It stifles their expression – and gives them the license to do the same.
You're allowed to deny the Holocaust in the United States, you're not allowed to deny the Holocaust in Europe There's a lot more free speech in the United States, but we're becoming because the left loves Europe more like Europe Hey, they ban hate speech will do it too and what's hate speech? Whatever we don't agree with That's all it means. That is all it means
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
I think what Twitter and X have done with community notes, I think is just a better program. Rather than having a small number of fact checkers, you get the whole community to weigh in. When people usually disagree on something, tend to agree on how they're voting on a note, that's a good sign to the community that this is, there's actually like a broad consensus on this and then you show it. And you are showing more information, not less. Right. So you're not using the fact check as a signal to show less, you're using the community note to provide real context, and show additional information. So I think that's better. 
Missing Reference