How the 'Reddit exodus' illustrates the state of free speech on the Web (thespec.com, Feb. 20)

While freedom of speech is a constitutional right, it implies respect to other freedoms. I think failing to censor highly controversial topics, crosses the line in respecting the rights of others, whether it is privacy or protection. The fact that Reddit and other similar websites subject individuals to victimization on the Internet is absurd.

Yes, social media is meant for expressing opinions. And yes, it is a fundamental right. But when freedom of speech interferes with other rights and freedoms, freedom of speech must not prevail. I am all for expressing an opinion and I believe society cannot change unless people are able to freely state their beliefs, and the Internet is an excellent medium to do so. However, sharing celebrity nude photos or posting homophobic content, for example, fails to protect individual privacy rights.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the philosophy of free speech of Voat, a Reddit knock-off, especially when it offends 'vulnerable populations.' Without prohibitions on sensitive topics, cyberbullying is encouraged. Absolute free speech on the Internet is problematic because individuals are harmed more by media publication than the media are harmed by banning publication of content that disrespects and persecutes individuals. I bet any government would concur to protect individuals from harmful social media content.

Personally, there is not an explicit solution to these current debates between balancing freedoms, though I do know that if freedom of expression caused me to be victimized, I would feel it was unjust if someone's absolute freedom infringed on my rights.