Funny thing is, on a fundamental level I'm not even against a perfect committee that moderates people who say malicious, hateful things online. If it indeed did work as well as you're envisioning, was guaranteed to always do so, and left open no door where the courts would use it as precedent to justify allowing the government control over other forms of speech.
But that just isn't likely. I super strongly believe in the importance of the 1st amendment, because I know what history has shown happens when the government gets access to the power of restricting speech beyond very exceptional circumstances. And right now, when both parties talk about regulating social media, they aren't talking about forming a non-paritsan committee and taking extreme steps to ensure it's perfectly contained to *only* the speech you're talking about. No, they're talking about having much greater, unchecked power.
I just don't buy the argument that "They do a good job regulating food safety, so why not speech?" The principle that the founding fathers believed in, that I do too, is that the regulation of ideas and beliefs, or in other words, speech, is one of the (if not the most) primary things that separates a government from being a democratic one to being an oppressive one.
www.breitbart.com
