![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Freedom of speech doesn't mean saying whatever you like whenever you like
Freedom of speech is a nice concept, and one worth fighting for. It's not something you can assume you have a legal right to on the internet, especially when you consider all the different countries' legal systems involved (my own country offers pretty patchy support) Sop when I say "right" here I just mean in the non-legally binding moral imperative sense.
But even when we consider the principle, what it means is that you have the right not to suffer legal consequences for expressing an opinion, and the right to have public spaces in which you can express yourself.
It does not mean you have the right to avoid social repercussions. If it did, wouldn't you complaining about the people complaining about you be a violation of their right to "free speech"?
Secondly, just because something is publicly visible doesn't make it a "public space". If a private individual or organisation is in charge of a space (and this is true of pretty much everywhere on the internet) then they have the right to completely control what is said there, and that includes deleting content and banning contributors. Which is not to say that this isn't sometimes a bad thing for them to do if they are inconsistent or overly harsh, but they still have that right to dictate both the general nature and specifics of what is and is not said.
If you want to say something they don't like, say it somewhere else.
On the other side: if you are in charge of a space (the comments to your blog, say), while in principle you have the right to run it how you like people will be justifiably annoyed if you act inconsistently or (in their opinion) overly harshly.
For further discussion on the specific issues involved with blog comments, you might like to read my post POLL: When is it ok to edit a blog post?.
This post was written as part of my General principles of internet communication.
But even when we consider the principle, what it means is that you have the right not to suffer legal consequences for expressing an opinion, and the right to have public spaces in which you can express yourself.
It does not mean you have the right to avoid social repercussions. If it did, wouldn't you complaining about the people complaining about you be a violation of their right to "free speech"?
Secondly, just because something is publicly visible doesn't make it a "public space". If a private individual or organisation is in charge of a space (and this is true of pretty much everywhere on the internet) then they have the right to completely control what is said there, and that includes deleting content and banning contributors. Which is not to say that this isn't sometimes a bad thing for them to do if they are inconsistent or overly harsh, but they still have that right to dictate both the general nature and specifics of what is and is not said.
If you want to say something they don't like, say it somewhere else.
On the other side: if you are in charge of a space (the comments to your blog, say), while in principle you have the right to run it how you like people will be justifiably annoyed if you act inconsistently or (in their opinion) overly harshly.
For further discussion on the specific issues involved with blog comments, you might like to read my post POLL: When is it ok to edit a blog post?.
This post was written as part of my General principles of internet communication.
no subject
Socially I often feel I cannot make comments against the popular opinion (even though it is my right if everyone has free speech) without being personally abused. You can make comments on a issue without going into personal attacks about it. I guess it's ok to make comments on whatever issue you like underfree speech, but personal attacks that are not based in truth are not ok.
If that makes sense at all?
no subject
You can make comments on a issue without going into personal attacks about it
You'd think so... :/
But yes, I think it goes against the spirit of free speech to respond to politely expressed opinions with personal insult, no matter how much you disagree with the opinions. If they're that wrong you should be able to find lots of strong arguments against them.
That said I'm not sure not sure how to come up with a consistent fair approach that doesn't play into the hands of the really nasty extremists whose ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously enough to debunk at length. HMM.
no subject
no subject
Absolutely. But I was thinking more in terms of blanket banning/deporting/censoring etc stuff from certain forums where it's usually ok to have a variety of opinions. Where you can't walk away, it's your home, the choice is is whether or not to force them to shut up.
no subject
no subject