We will be at Southeast Regional Library in Community Room A
About the Group:
This is a friendly Socratic Café where we explore big ideas through open conversation. No philosophy background is needed, just curiosity, respect, and a willingness to share and listen.
### Discussion Questions: COVID-19 vs. Jimmy Kimmel Suspension
***
### General Consistency
- If removing false COVID claims was justified to protect lives, should suspending Kimmel also be justified if his remarks could inflame political tensions that lead to violence?
- Why do some people accept limiting medical misinformation but reject limiting political misinformation, when both can cost lives?
- Are we applying one standard for health harms and another for political harms — and is that consistent?
***
### Government Pressure
- During COVID, the White House urged platforms to take down harmful health claims. In Kimmel’s case, the FCC urged ABC to act. Should these be judged by the same standard?
- If government intervention is allowed to stop the spread of medical misinformation, why not also to stop speech that could worsen political violence?
- At what point does government “guidance” cross the line into coercion — and does it matter whether the harm risk is disease or violence?
***
### Lethality of Harms
- Is death from political violence (riots, shootings) fundamentally different from death from refusing vaccines — or should they both be considered equally lethal outcomes of misinformation?
- If health misinformation was treated as a public safety emergency, should politically charged misinformation be treated as a security emergency?
- Should the “duty of care” argument apply equally: platforms acted to prevent illness, broadcasters act to prevent violence?
***
### Standards of Truth
- During COVID, posts later shown to have some truth (e.g., lab-leak theory) were initially suppressed. Should that make us cautious about suspending Kimmel’s speculative remarks, or is the risk of violence too great?
- Who should decide what’s “misinformation” in each case — scientists and doctors during COVID, or regulators and networks during political crises?
- If suppressing false medical claims was defended as protecting the public, why shouldn’t suppressing potentially false political accusations be defended the same way?
***
### Corporate Responsibility
- Do social media platforms and TV broadcasters share the same obligation to act when speech could lead to death — whether from disease or political violence?
- Should corporations anticipate lethal risks in both contexts and act preemptively, even if it means silencing voices people want to hear?
- If advertisers pressured platforms to block COVID misinformation, and affiliates pressured ABC to suspend Kimmel, are these pressures fundamentally the same kind of corporate responsibility?
