There is so much censorship going on these days in both the mainstream media and on social media that it seems odd to have to describe a story that is headlined ‘racism is ok on our platform’ as something positive. However, when you examine this story it is pretty positive especially when contrasted with how other platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have behaved. Although I despise racism and have marched against its proponents, the fact that the founder of Reddit has said that people have a right to express all ideas whether good or bad, makes a refreshing change. People, especially those in favour of things like ‘hate speech’ laws seem to forget that it was by debating the issues of race and racism in a multitude of settings ranging from Parliament to people chatting in their works canteen that judging people by the colour of their skin started to be accepted as both wrong and pointless.

According to Sky News the Chief Executive of Reddit Steve Huffman said that there’s a diversity of views on the platform and that includes those who have views that are radically different from others. This looks to me like a robust defence of free speech. As I said in the opening paragraph, I’ve never been in favour of treating people either better or worse because of the colour of their skin, this sort of racism does not treat people as individuals and is to my mind immoral. But, we do not solve problems like racism by forbidding people, including avowed racists, from speaking. I don’t use Reddit personally, it’s never attracted me for style reasons if nothing else, unlike the other main free speech platform gab.ai, which is more ‘twitter-like’. But I find I have to applaud Mr Huffman’s stand for freedom of speech and yes, even for speech that I very much disagree with.

Sky News said:

Open racism including racial slurs are allowed on Reddit, the social media company’s chief executive Steve Huffman has said.

In the comment section for the company’s 2017 transparency report, Mr Huffman wrote that Reddit’s “approach to governance is that communities can set appropriate standards around language for themselves”.

Posting under his username ‘spez’, Mr Huffman wrote: “On Reddit, the way in which we think about speech is to separate behaviour from beliefs.

“This means on Reddit there will be people with beliefs different from your own, sometimes extremely so.

“When users’ actions conflict with our content policies, we take action.”

The idea of online communities setting their own standards does respect the sovereignty of the individual and respects the right of individual humans to hold differing views, even controversial views. I most certainly agree with the separation of speech from beliefs as words are just that, mere words. Someone using a racial slur on a bulletin board is not the same as punching someone in the face and no amount of bleating by various organisations about ‘micro aggressions’ or ‘social media

being an unfriendly place for minorities’ can or should change that. I see loads of depressingly racialist content online but it is a simple matter for me to pull on my big boy pants and hit the mute button when I see it, whether it is aimed at me and mine or aimed at others. When you walk through the town square, or the internet forums that are the modern equivalent, you will probably hear and read things that you may personally find objectionable but when you stop and think about it maybe your views are objectionable to others? You would of course want your right to voice your views to be protected but the cost of that is to allow others, whose views you may vehemently object to, to have a similar protection. The answer to the bad speech of some is not to make the town square a zone of silence or a place where only approved opinions can be voiced, but to bring the bad speech into the open where it can be challenged.

Of course I support the idea that social media platforms should have some rules. Credible threats of violence aimed at specific targets along with doxing and spamming should be targeted by these platforms as these actions go beyond what can reasonably be accepted as freedom of speech and are actions designed to damage or harm either the person or the rights of others.

Mr Huffman has seemingly done the complete opposite of what other major social media platforms are doing which is clamping down on people’s right to speak freely whether they are talking sense or are talking complete gibberish. Free speech is a vital safety valve in any advanced society and I’m pleased to see that Mr Huffman appears to believe that this safety valve should not be jammed by ham-fisted attempts at censorship or a panicky desire to appease the social justice warrior crowd.

I want to see genuine racialism challenged but it cannot be challenged if it is buried in the shadows. There it can fester and mutate and become much much worse. It is only by dragging bad ideas into the light that they can be examined and found worthless and for that to happen there must be a right for the citizen or subject to speak freely.