Suppose there was a hit song that caused 80% of its listeners kill themselves. Should that song be banned, or would you argue that free speech is more important?

I think most people would take the practical approach. We already have some minor constraints on free speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater. You can’t defame someone in public. It would be no big deal to ban one particular song if the alternative was the death of millions.

What if the song killed fewer people? Would you ban a hit song that’s loved around the world if there was no doubt, statistically speaking, it would result in the death of ten people?

We have that situation now, except it’s not music. Every time the media makes a big deal about a high profile suicide there’s a 100% chance it inspires additional suicide.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7377/1374

I first heard of this effect in the book “Influence,” by Robert B. Cialdini. The correlation between media reports of suicides and a spike in additional suicides is fairly clear. So when a big news outlet decides to run a story about a high profile suicide, there’s a near-certainty they are killing a few people to boost revenue. And they know it.

Do you have a problem with that?