Real estate Web 2.0 -- Free Speech
Friday, February 22, 2008 at 07:47AM Free speech has been a hot topic since I started posting in forums on the internet back in 1996. I'm sure it will continue to be a hot topic. A lot of it is tangled up with who owns a site and the rights of the owner.
I was on a site that was focused on writing and the subject would come up every so often, usually after someone had been banned from the site for being disruptive. The cries of "free speech" and "censorship" were deafening. I always saw it as the owner's prerogative to ban anyone they thought was violating the policies, because this falls outside the realm of free speech. The owner was saying you can speak, just that you can't speak anymore at my site. The owner didn't have the power to prevent the person from speaking altogether, just at the site.
It's similar to the old example of -- I support your right to say what you want to say, but I don't have to let you say it in my living room. Upholding these two principles is not morally inconsistent -- it's two rights that can be supported separately.
What I've had to judge, as being a participant of sites, is if the banning was justified or an attempt to squelch opposition, in order to decide if I still wanted to participate. Most times I understood the banning as a necessary action to preserve the site for others, because the one banned was disrupting the conversations with an agenda that didn't serve the purpose of the site. The one banned was free to go to another site, or start a site, and say whatever they wanted to say.
I have been a paticipant at sites that became way too restrictive and I didn't have to worry about leaving, they just folded from being too restrictive. The internet market place has a way of dealing with this.
That's the thing, the internet is open and voices can be heard in a variety of different ways. No one can be silenced. And if a site becomes too dictatorial, they usually fail.
Discussing the moral dilemma of openness is one thing, the practical application is another, and while any one person can have a voice on the internet, we are not forced to listen to any one voice -- thank God.
The competition of voices is much like competition in the market, if you have something to say that's worth saying, it'll be heard, if not, people will move along. I might have a right to sell tomatoes, but I don't have a right to set up a stand on your property and force you to buy my tomatoes. This issue gets tangled up at times because people don't think through the issue.
More later.
Reader Comments (12)
Good post, Mr. Farmer.
Of course, if the state of education in our country on matters of civics were not so woeful, the average citizen might know enough about the Constitution to realize that "free speech" rights only restrain the government, not private individuals or organizations. They might realize that the First Amendment restrains only the power of the state, and has no bearing whatsoever on the owner of a private website...
-rsh
Thanks Rob. I checked out your blog -- I like it.
Sadly, most people have a mongrel philosophy of bit and pieces of ideas they've mushed together without ever thinking them through and making them consistent.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the First Amendment and free speech.
http://tinyurl.com/3au7lk
See also:
http://bloodhoundunchained.com/blog/
BTW: moderation is fine but outright blacklisting prevents perfectly acceptable speech from reaching the reader. Unless you are the one moderating, you have no idea what points of view are being silenced. What you get is a stilted, unbalanced conversation, which in the old days we called propaganda.
You have admitted writing for a blog for which you have "no idea" of the blacklisting practices. For you it was good enough you had "a place to write" (your words). How then can you intelligently defend a practice you know nothing about except in broad strokes? You have never seen the blacklisted/censored comments to judge the fairness of their suppression. In any event, based on your belief system, it is of no concern of yours, you just work there. Folks at Nuremburg used similar logic.
It is easy to talk in generalities but looking at specific cases requires an application of thought and logic which applies general principles to prescribed facts.
I don't like the implications and accusations, but, nevertheless, inform me.
I am in the research stage of building a network. If the "blacklisting" is an important part of your argument, then send me an email - mike@mikefarmerrealty.com -- and inform me.
If you don't want to go to that trouble, I understand we all have business to attend to -- but, otherwise I have no idea.
And, Joseph, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me. I haven't attacked your stance once, please don't use these weak weapons to belittle mine.
You are doing what you claim to despise.
Mike I will email you about BHB blacklisting and how it might offend your noble ideas on free speech, which I support.
1. My comment makes no reference to any "attack" by you or as the reason or basis for the comment.
2. I make assumptions about your "ideas" and your "logic" by virtue of your "words". I challenge your logic, I do not attack your person. If I called you a mental midget or slug, that would be a personal attack.
Here are your words (verbatim):
"I barely know how Greg runs his site. He asked me to post there and I post there. .... I don’t care how he runs his site. I assume he has his reasons. I will know more as time goes on — righ now I just post there. I don’t know either of you well enough to make any judgements."
Thus my comment that if you "don't care" or "barely know" you cannot intelligently argue, or make a judgment, that his blacklisting policy is justified based on the general principle that "one can run their site as they see fit." When this general principle, which we all accept, is used to stifle dissent, under the guise of niceness, that results in manipulation of the conversation so that only "pro BHB" commentary gets through-- this is classic propaganda. All totalitarian regimes establish rules they use to stifle dissent (thus my analogy in other places to BHB as Animal Farm).
Thus, if you do not know and do not CARE to know, it is a defense I find analogous to that used in past history. The accusation, if you want to paint it that way, is that I accuse you of giving an unjustifiable defense.
Finally, you cannot have it both ways. Either you recognize one person's right to object, lampoon, spoof or you do not, in which case you are really for suppression.
Again, your words:
"Dustin wrote: “However, I honestly wish no ill will on anyone involved, and rather than back them further into a defensive corner, I’m going to leave my opinions out of the discussion in order to leave more space for these people to see the error of their ways, apologize profusely, and re-enter our community in a constructive manner.”
Now, THAT concerns me. "
Why should that statement concern you if you are for free speech? Dustin's opinion that an apology is in order is his right to voice. You should acknowledge this right.
To say that concerns you, concerns me.
"I barely know how Greg runs his site. He asked me to post there and I post there. .... I don’t care how he runs his site. I assume he has his reasons. I will know more as time goes on — righ now I just post there. I don’t know either of you well enough to make any judgements."
Thus my comment that if you "don't care" or "barely know" you cannot intelligently argue, or make a judgment, that his blacklisting policy is justified based on the general principle that "one can run their site as they see fit." When this general principle, which we all accept, is used to stifle dissent, under the guise of niceness, that results in manipulation of the conversation so that only "pro BHB" commentary gets through-- this is classic propaganda. All totalitarian regimes establish rules they use to stifle dissent (thus my analogy in other places to BHB as Animal Farm).
________________________
Because what you conveniently left out is the rest of it: "I will know more as time goes on — right now I just post there. I don’t know either of you well enough to make any judgements."
In other words, I have no reason, yet, to trust what you say is true, and I don't have enough information to make a judgement.
When I say I don't care how Greg runs his site, I mean he can run it any way he sees fit. If you had included everything I said, then it's obvious I would make a judgement if I had more information that is trustworthy.
But I can tell you right now, I grow bored with this type of argument.
I've stated my case, if you have more evidence, I'll look at it and I'll decide for myself what's best for me.
I did not leave anything out, Mike
My words:
Here are your words (verbatim):
"I barely know how Greg runs his site. He asked me to post there and I post there. .... I don’t care how he runs his site. I assume he has his reasons. I will know more as time goes on — righ now I just post there. I don’t know either of you well enough to make any judgements."
You said (incorrectly):
Because what you conveniently left out is the rest of it: "I will know more as time goes on — right now I just post there. I don’t know either of you well enough to make any judgements."
I did not leave this out. It is included in the last sentence.
True. Until you know more, you are in no position to support it.
This is what you left it out of Joe, your first comment -
"Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the First Amendment and free speech.
http://tinyurl.com/3au7lk
See also:
http://bloodhoundunchained.com/blog/
BTW: moderation is fine but outright blacklisting prevents perfectly acceptable speech from reaching the reader. Unless you are the one moderating, you have no idea what points of view are being silenced. What you get is a stilted, unbalanced conversation, which in the old days we called propaganda.
You have admitted writing for a blog for which you have "no idea" of the blacklisting practices. For you it was good enough you had "a place to write" (your words). How then can you intelligently defend a practice you know nothing about except in broad strokes? You have never seen the blacklisted/censored comments to judge the fairness of their suppression. In any event, based on your belief system, it is of no concern of yours, you just work there. Folks at Nuremburg used similar logic.
It is easy to talk in generalities but looking at specific cases requires an application of thought and logic which applies general principles to prescribed facts."
You left out the context. but if you want to win -- you win -- I'm moving along. You aren't following the discussion, or either you are purposefully playing with words to win. You win, Joe. I'm not playing anymore.
I didn't realize we were playing a game, Mike. But thanks anyway.
I leave you with this:
What I've had to judge, as being a participant of sites, is if the banning was justified or an attempt to squelch opposition, in order to decide if I still wanted to participate. Most times I understood the banning as a necessary action to preserve the site for others, because the one banned was disrupting the conversations with an agenda that didn't serve the purpose of the site. The one banned was free to go to another site, or start a site, and say whatever they wanted to say.
If you care to find your answer, you will look into it and make your judgment. But until then, by your own admission, you lack information to make an intelligent decision.
Thanks, Joe, I'll be looking into every connection I make online and making decisions about my involvement accordingly..
I think we're in agreement on that being the best way to go about it.