> On the other hand, he seems to contradict that point at the end: "Yes, speech can be harmful, which is why journalists like me have always welcomed libel and

> On the other hand, he seems to contradict that point at the end: "Yes, speech can be harmful, which is why journalists like me have always welcomed libel and incitement laws and myriad other restrictions, and why new rules will probably have to be concocted for some of the unique problems of the Internet age" I don’t think this is a contradiction, but see below. >>Who gets to decide what makes the discourse healthy? >Authority. The same institutions that get to decide anything else. What I'm arguing is that, if you are okay with say, the police limiting freedom of association in the public space to ensure the safety of a community, you ought to be okay with limits on freedom of speech for that same reason. There's nothing mystical about it, nothing extra, nothing that warrants dogmatic defense. The reason why people hesitate with this is, as I said in the first post, that regulating speech amounts to acknowledging that this sort of rationalist individualism is a myth. I think this conclusion is flawed. Free speech isn’t held as valuable for its own sake, but because the suppression idea exchange; lack of discourse on unpopular topics; and generally taking an unpopular position; all put the society at risk of becoming stunted or extremely oppressive. So authority can decide some speech is harmful and offers no real benefit. However, this no way implies that society absolutely knows what sorts of speech are actually beneficial.