Freedom of Speech - Is the concept outdated, or dangerous?
Tags: Freedom of Speech,philosophical,web etiqutte

I will start this post by stating clearly where I stand on ths issue. I am for the concept of Freedom of Speech, but I also understand it comes with responsibilities to the community.

Speech which seeks to slander another person is reasonable to restrict. Speech in private venues does not have the same level of protection as public speech (i.e. a publication is not obligated to print your manuscript, and can apply their own editorial standars for acceptable content). Speech which seeks to create an imminent threat of public harm such as yelling "fire" in a crowded public place to induce a panic is also reasonably prohibited. Speech considered obscene by the general populace can be regulated by community standards.

These are standards set within the United States for reasonable accomodation of the sensitivities/safety of the largest group of people. I can also understand "privately operated" web sites having policies which are designed to prevent trolls, flame wars, and overly agressive dialog founded on the precept that internet annonymity creates people who throw reasoned discussion out the window in favor of insults and personal attacks.

Having this as my background, and having what I figured to be a fairly moderate view of the topic I found myself in a quandry in a different review site's forum. That site shall remain unmentioned here, but they have recently adopted a more active and agressive moderating stance which included a ban on political or religious

discussion.

I found a popular thread on this site which was involved in a discussion/promotion of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". As some people may know this "FSM" is a parody of religion used by atheists to politically undermine the position of religious groups. Given this site's published policy that no political or religious discussion would be permitted in their forums, I posted in that thread asking what people as writers thought about the concept of Freedom of Speech, and how it applied to the forum there.

Soon after my post, a post from a moderator came on stating that no religious or political discussion would be tolerated, so the sub-topic of Freedom of Speech was banned, and please continue with the "FSM" thread as that was permitted.

I was frankly a bit astonished by this attitude. The discussion of Freedom of Speech was banned, but the discussion of "FSM" which is overtly a political debate about religion was permitted. This seemed to be opposite of what I understood their own site policy to establish. The concept of Freedome of Speech is of importance to writers everywhere, and I did not consider it a "political" matter at all (thought I can conceive that some might take it that way).

I sent a message to the blanket administrator account for the forums and questioned why "FSM" discussion which seemed to be against their own policy, but discussion of Freedom of Speech was not permitted which wasn't overtly against their policies. I was not accused of breaking any of their "politeness" polices but was essentially told that discussion of Freedom of Speech was the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded public place.

I knew it was futile to continue the dialog with their administration then. I told them I would leave their site without further bothering them if that was their perspective. I posted my farewells, and deleted my account.

They were correct on a critical point. It was their site. They made the rules what they wanted them to be, and they enforced them based on their own bias. They didn't want honest debate on their site. They only wanted blind acceptance of their position.

I was correct on a different critical point. I didn't have to participate anywhere on the web where I have an essential disagreement with their administration about the concept of fairness and equal voice for all. They promoted one voice (without overtly advertising such) and quickly moved to remove any discussion of their rules or their uneven enforcement of them.

Which is why I can appreciate a site like review fuse which has some basic rules about respecting others and remaining civil in converstation. I have no problem with the concepts behind that. I do think it a shame that as a society it is conceived to be unnaceptable to engage in reasoned mannered debate. That questioning the even enforcement of the accepted rules of a community equates to yelling "fire" in a crowded structure.

So I ask the members at large here - What do you think about concept of Freedom of Speech and its importance to the writer in you? Would you go as far as I did to defend it? Would you have done even more? Do you think it is a concept which endangers society at large?

I curious to know.

p.s. pardon the notable textual errors above. I am typing rather quickly and I can make mistakes when using this rather small window, hehe.

As far as I'm concerned, the rules on Review Fuse are in place because the age range is so wide. I don't know what the bottom limit is, assuming there is one, but I think it might be something like fourteen? In which case, it makes sense that explicit material wouldn't be allowed. I'm sure there must be other sites out there where people can post what they like, so it's no more an infringement of free speech that film certificates.

However, that said, I would defend the concept of free speech to the death. A lot of people do voice opinions that I find very distasteful, and which I think, in a perfect world, wouldn't exist, but I would never deny them the right to voice it. I would expect the same in return.

In terms of writing, well, people choose to express themselves in all sorts of ways. As I think I mentioned in the other thread, I've read and written a lot of fanfiction, in an environment which encourages people to write things that would never be allowed elsewhere. The general rule there is to write whatever you want, so long as you attach appropriate warnings. A lot of the stories people were complaining about on this site probably should have had warnings attached.

I do have a problem with people who exploit the idea of free speech, though. As far as I'm concerned, it does come with a certain level of responsibility - free speech does not give you the right to insult people or shout 'fire' in the middle of a crowded building. Warning for the graphic rape scene midway through your story is not 'censoring yourself'. And there are also, of course, people who write disturbing stories because they are disturbed themselves (I've encountered a few people who I would question the sanity of).

Penny - I have no problem with establishing an editorial standard based on the "audience" of a subject. If a young audience is to be reading a site, then limiting the graphic depiction of violence may well be a reasonable editorial bias. Requireing "truth in content" labels which establish the "nature" of the material is also fine with me. (Personally I write for a young adult adult audience which includes minimal crude language, moderate depictions of violence, and discrete depictions of human social behavior.) I would personally state I am for a Parental Guidance 13 (PG-13) rating on my own work. Though I have no problem with people writing "Mature" audience works either as long as the nature of their material is clearly listed.

This is still a bit different than declaring whole topics of general interest to human beings (as opposed to only satisfying a purient interest of a small group of individuals) as taboo and forbidden for discussion. For example, I think in comparison if handled with care and respect even the concept of forceable sexual assault can be delt with in a generally acceptable manner as long as purient depictions of events is not the point behind the discussion of something which is a problem in many societies. Even a toddler can differentiate between acceptable human contact like a hug, and unacceptable human contact like a violent assault.

I would challenge if it is the topic which should be outright taboo, or the manner in which the topic is discussed or depicted which makes it unacceptable. I broached child abuse, and sexual assault above without a need for purient description of the acts or use of generaly offensive language. The concepts are still uncomfortable for society to deal with, and more graphic depictions may serve to increase the discomfort of the potential reader. However, banning the discussion altogether does not prevent it from happening.

I think that similar things can be said for discussion of topics like Freedom of Speech. Many people may not want to be exposed to every kind of thing which could be written. I personally am not a huge fan of the "Romance" genre of literature. I generally choose not to read it, and I don't want someone "requiring" me to do so. That being said, I also do not think that my dislike for the topic should require a ban from anyone else reading or enjoying it.

Which brings me to things like forum threads. As long as the posters are treated with the general respect due to human beings, I don't think that it is inherently impossible to discuss topics like politics or religion either. Certainly there are people who lack common decency, and the ability to engage in polite social interaction. Does that mean that those who can engage in polite discourse must also refrain because of the "inherently" volutile nature of the topic?

Thanks for your reply.