View Single Post
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#15
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens View Post
I am a believer in freedom of speech, and especially in the freedom of expression of opinions that I detest (what else is freedom of speech good for anyway?).

Furthermore, it is only words. They cannot hurt anyone beyond one's feelings, so what's the point of going all Spanish Inquisition on them? If a troll and its detractors want to start a flaming war, I say let them have their puerile fun; it's no skin of my back. Actually, it's usually a good sign for a forum if the local troll population starts to pay attention: it means the forum has achieved escape velocity and is now cruising happily above the event horizon (Prof. Hawking would probably have me crucified for mixing metaphores like that).

Finally, when I "spar" on this forum, it's usually to get a point across or, sometimes, to apply a bit of (poor) socratic irony: on occasion things need to be said with brutal exaggeration to get noticed. I'm not saying I'm good at it, mind, just that I try...
I am an ardent believer in free speech as well. If you read my political posts in other fora it would be obvious.

But there are some things to keep in mind. One, free speech is protected in public venues, not private. Therefore anyone running a private podium is well within his rights to establish limits. Along those lines, reasonable retraint does exist in the public environ, ie, decorum against "shouting fire in a crowded theater". That said, I am reluctant to accept even the smallest encroachments and am angered to say the least at the current attacks on speech here in the US under the guise of "political (in)correctness".

My last point is that while it is true we are talking about "just words" at a simplistic level, in a realistic sense such a statement actually contradicts your stance on free speech. If they are "just words" then they are powerless and protecting the right to utter them meaningless. The reality is of course that words do possess power and a reasonable person executes them with responsibility. The reality is also that only an objective robot could completely avoid being moved by incendiary verbiage.

Again, I believe Reggie is striking a rational balance against irrational forces. You, on the other hand, seem to want to rationalize the irrational. It's a fun exercise in detached ivory towers but useless here in the trenches. When a malcontent chooses to inflict his cancer unfettered upon a forum, all the philosophical rationalizing in the world won't cure or kill that effort. That's why we have civil laws, because man can be an uncivil beast in their absence. The evidence to that here is isolated, but evident nonetheless. Let's keep it isolated.

/soapbox

Last edited by Texrat; 2007-06-06 at 13:25.