I disagree with Puttnam’s analysis: that it does.
Freedom of speech hurts some people but we already have laws of negligence, defamation and slander.
It is not possible to regulate media with reference to ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ because we are in a post-truth age where these have disappeared. All opinions must be considered now. This is better than the narrow moralities of the past e.g. condemnation of witchcraft and homosexuality.
Debating of binary issues is defunct because post-truth content is not binary. Debating is being replaced by politicking. The media aim is profit, within Debord’s spectacle, with a news churn having self-serving morality. Reform of the spectacle could be to reduce employee alienation, with job improvement by workers’ councils. Also by reducing consumer alienation, by limitation of product resource use, energy demand and packaging. Investment regulation could reduce media concentration and foster competition. Duty of Care censorship could consider harmful effects on minorities of advertising. The media industry can be made more responsible by cutting off the flow of money they lure.
My novels have current issues reviewed on my blog: martinknox.com
Supposing that COVID-19 hangs around for repeat seasons, or new virulent viruses arrive, the regulation of the many, for the benefit of the few, could threaten restoration of society, unless we revert to the kinds of voluntary behaviour that were accepted for so long. When difference in virulence numbers between countries is clear, actions needed could become clearer. www.martinknox.wordpress.com/news