Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. Thomas Jefferson
The current problem is that our press is currently NOT free as it should be. A lot of this is to do with technological change and ownership of the media.
Free speech is different to freedom of the media in that people should be free to say things as they want but the level of responsibility is different - but the point is that they remain responsible for it. You can be sued for defamation for example, if what you say is not true.
If what is said is printed it has a different power - this is where libel in particular comes in. If something is written, it can be distributed and whoever publishes it has a certain influence and power over an above that of the individual. There was also (until the advent of social media) gatekeeping where there was a time lag between when something was written and when it was published. Thus intent is different. Slander being spoken is much more off the cuff and doesn't (necessarily) involve anyone else's involvement in the same way. Its now more complex because social media means everything is instantaneous and this has removed this type of gatekeeping making it much easier to defame someone to a much wider audience.
So when we talk about free speech, there is a difference to what it was in the past. You could have a conversation in the pub and be free to say what you want and it wouldn't really have any decernable effect. Now if you have that same conversation not in the pub but on social media, millions have the potential to read it and the consequences are markedly different.
Where the problem comes, is therefore with power being disproportionate to what accountability there now is. Its much easier to defame, slander and libel. And much harder to hold people to account either socially or via the law. Thats why were are in a 'wild west' stage.
I believe in free speech, but that still means there should be accountability for what you say. Thus if you are abusive to someone thats not ok and you should have consequences. The problem is to do with what those consequences are. In the past there would be social pressure, but controversy is popular so it stead of being shunned people are actively rewarded for poor behaviour.
That leaves social media companies to take responsibility. Except there is no accountability nor transparency over what the social media companies are doing and there is every suggestion that they are ill equiped to do it consistantly and fairly. Social media companies are very often banning what they feel based on market decisions about whether that makes them more popular - and thus has more market value - rather than because its the right thing to do. And this has a massive effect on freedom.
That leads on to law which is far behind the technology with politicians years behind the curve and with no idea of the nature of the problem. Its currently totally useless in the face of what he needs to deal with.
The press is desparately trying to compete against social media, so is not free to report in the way it used to as its being pressured to be as responsive as social media. Rather than cutting out the niche its supposed to inhabit, which seeks out accurancy it is turning to less accurate and more extreme sensationalism.
Social media companies are not about freedom of speech. They are about shaping the concept of freedom of speech for their profit.
If they were really about freedom of speech then there wouldn't be problems with bots and there wouldn't be algorythyms which amplify certain users over other users - so certain 'popular' or 'controversial' tweets were given greater weight. Tweets would all be exactly the same 'weight' in cyberspace and there would be no ability to retweet. Social media's role in distributing ideas and words is similar to why it became necessary for liable laws to be introduced - except what we currently have doesn't really cover the scale of the problem because there is no way of enforcing what laws there are.
Technically speaking, I'm pretty damn such that Alex Jones could be sued for defamation of character for suggesting that the anyone who was witness to Sandyhook is a liar. If its in writing on his site, then libel would also apply. But the damage has already been done because enforcement after the fact only reinforces the idea that he is a victim of a conspiracy if you were to go ahead and do so. But yes, thats a good reason for Twitter to deplatform - because an illegal activity has taken place. Thats not about freedom of speech. And thats why no one, even if they are right wing nutters, should be petitioning anyone to host the likes of Alex Jones.
And its the truth and facts bit that really matters. If you want to say negative stuff about someone, you need to hold some accountability for it. If it goes beyond an opinion of saying 'well i just don't like them', then you really have to have some substance behind it. The more power you have, the more you need to be able to demonstrate that your opinon holds merit.
Accountability and transparency is the crux of free speech. Media companies are supposed to part of that process and are supposed to expose it when thats not happening. The problem is that in the desparate chase for profit they are taking short cuts and weakening the process.
Which is why we don't have the free speech we should.
Free speech is not about being free to be a tosser without consequence. The difference is subtle but important. Freedom of speech means you are free from the state restricting what you can say; the point is that you have to also be able to justify and be responsible in what you say too. Free speech needs respect for the truth to be something that society as a whole values. Free speech needs respect for other people to be something that society as a whole upholds.
Free speech also is about the ability of others to offer a counter argument - if someone has been intimidated by another voicing their opinion that crushes their freedom of speech. This is why respect is so essential to the concept of free speech.
When people are not safe to state the truth or don't feel safe to state their opinion you know you no longer have free speech. Safe is the key word here.
The real problem in 2018 is the system that supports the right to free speech has effectively completely collasped.
I support the principle of free speech in this sense and in this context. Not in any bullshit simplistic 'you can say whatever the fuck you like' type definition of what freedom of speech is.
To go a bit further, I'll use this as an example.
When Boris Johnson talks about people looking like letterboxes, thats not respectful. Boris Johnson saying that burkas are an issue if women are forced to wear them or because it restricts important social interacts through facial expression would be an entirely different kettle of fish. Noting that Boris Johnson holds more power than others, so should be held to higher standards than others because of the impact it has. He is free to discuss the subject of burkas, but the way he does it is important and he is accountable for it. Being disrespectful and bordering on offensive in his manner, has potential consequences for what others think is acceptable to say and do to women who wear burkas. This is why he should be held to account not for what he was talking about, but the manner in which he did it.
The guy down the pub talking about burkas and letterboxes with his mates might not be pleasant and I don't like it. But its not being broadcast to millions of people at 6 o'clock when people are tuning in whilst eating their dinner. Nor is it directly harming a particular individual who is present (provided there is no one wearing a burka in earshot).
The guy shouting at a woman in the street about her looking like a letterbox, isn't demonstrating his right to free speech - he's trying to intimidate and abuse a woman. The intent is not to start a debate, not to joke nor to make any other point - its abuse and to make her feel unsafe.
Yes it matters. Because it comes back to the safety of others and the responsibility you take for your actions. Freedom of speech is a concept which interacts with other people's freedom. Its not something you 'own' and isn't separate from other people.