Clicky

Freedom of Speech Requires Freedom of Reach

Why "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" is a flawed argument.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino recently made headlines for talking out of both sides of her mouth. On the one hand she professes to be supporting free speech. On the other hand, she uses the tired, cliche, and sinister phrase of “freedom of speech but not freedom of reach,” one of the ways that has been used to justify censorship throughout history.

The policy is one where users, when posting narratives that are not in line with approved standards, are labeled, possibly demonetized for that content, and have their visibility reduced on the platform.

“If it is lawful but it’s awful, it’s extraordinarily difficult for you to see it,” she remarked, insinuating that even legally permissible content might be obscured if deemed undesirable by the company.

In today’s digital age, the battle lines over freedom of speech have shifted dramatically. Gone are the days when censorship debates were primarily about books being burned or protesters being silenced in public squares.

Red shield logo with three stylized black and white arrows curving outward, next to the text 'RECLAIM THE NET' with 'RECLAIM' in grey and 'THE NET' in red

Become a Member and Keep Reading…

Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back.

Already a supporter? Sign In.

Share this post