Pocketnet?

@DoctorOW I see what you’re saying but it doesn’t seem to be working out that way for me. I follow who I like and block who I don’t. I also browse through the general banter and find new people to follow. Things have been pretty good so far.

@TrophyHusband well said. Freedom comes at a cost - we both have it.

@TrophyHusband I mean last time I was linked to a “free speech” platform it was the Reddit clone Voat. I didn’t see any value added to a front page decorated with entries from a sub called “blackpeoplehate”. Sure sticking with Reddit meant I would never see what they had to say but ultimately I’m fine with that.

The paradox of tolerance is that in order for everyone to truly be free, we can’t be tolerant of intolerance. Put simply, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your “truly free fist swinging society” is just a bunch of people punching each other in the face.

@DoctorOW @TrophyHusband Yeah, and not everyone sees hate speech and thinks “I should avoid that”. Some think “we should get together with a bunch of other haters and hold rallies, possibly with torches, possibly in the halls of Congress while looking for people we disagree with”.

@DoctorOW @TrophyHusband

Put simply, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins

That is a great way to put it and it is correct. The issue is, where is the beginning of your nose? Certainly if I threaten your life or some other crap like that, then I have breeched that boundary. But what if we merely disagree, even strongly?

Recognizing that a private forum is not bound by the same restrictions as the government and can, if it chooses, censor speech, we must also recognize that that same private organization can choose not to censor speech.

If we want to consider reasonable limits to free speech that we might expect and even demand, then we can turn to what the Supreme Court has held (not necessarily exhaustive, but I think a good representative list):

• Defamation (I lie about you to damage your reputation)
• True threats of violence (“I’m going to kill you!”)
• “Fighting words” that are likely to imminently lead to violence
• Child pornography

Many people hold opinions on political or social topics that I find offensive. I’m sure there are those who would find my views equally as offensive. But we both have the right to hold those views. And express them, so long as that expression does not cross the boundary of the beginning of another person’s nose, as you so eloquently put it.

I really think the debate we seem to be having both here and more broadly across America, is where does my nose begin and therefore when do I get to demand that you stop saying what you are saying. And more importantly, when does that demand come with the full weight of the enforcement of governmental authorities. Does it begin at the point where I am actually harmed or in imminent danger of harm, or because I simply don’t like it?

It’s a reasonable conversation, so long as it remains civil. But it seems to be wandering into the realm of “these views should never see the light of day” even if the expression of them does not violate the traditionally supported limitations of free speech (see above). That is troubling. And what is even more troubling is the attempt by some to take whatever they do not agree with and define them in the terms of those limitations (e.g. merely expressing this view or this opinion is a true and imminent threat of violence). Those bounds seem to be widening and we all ought to take note. We are better when ideas are able to be debated based on the merits of the argument openly and the best ideas win.

And we are all better off if we recognize and defend the fact that those with opposing views to ours, even on things we believe strongly and cut to the core of who we are, are just as human as we are, are just as deserving of respect as individuals, and just as endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as are we all.

@brainmist @DoctorOW @TrophyHusband
But rallies, even ones with torches, are not illegal. Breaking into Congress, or businesses, or people’s homes is. That is where the line is crossed. Or, if at that rally someone says “let’s go burn down that church” or “lets go storm the White House”.

@DoctorOW @TrophyHusband Funny, maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life, but I’ve never had my nose bloodied by words on a screen.

@brainmist …or on the streets of Portland or Seattle thinking, “Here are some people I agree with so I should get together with them and hold rallies, possibly with torches”.

I’m just saying that “freedom” goes both ways. It’s impossible to have “tolerance” for a only limited set of “acceptable” views.

Everyone’s perspective matters or nobody’s perspective matters.

And when one of those perspectives is clearly harmful, deal with THAT. Don’t muzzle minority viewpoints just because they don’t align with one’s own.

I’m not a Trumpist. I’m not a fan of the current president. I’m truly an independent libertarian. And I sincerely believe stifling of different points of view is wrong. I believe that ____-phobes, (fill in the blank of your choosing) and racists, and bigots are wrong-headed and on the wrong side of progress.

But silencing them is even more wrong, as it drives them into the shadows. Surely, driving people into the closet because they are “different” can’t be good for a society. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

And, @DoctorOW – I don’t know why you think the fist-swinging analogy works. I never suggest violence or battery; I’m just saying expressing an opinion that another person doesn’t agree with is healthy in a civil society.

@brainmist @DoctorOW @TrophyHusband

I don’t know why you think the fist-swinging analogy works. I never suggest violence or battery; I’m just saying expressing an opinion that another person doesn’t agree with is healthy in a civil society.

I think you are getting to the heart of the matter. I can’t speak for DoctorOW, but when certain ideas cut to the core of who one is (this often happens with religious beliefs or other deeply held ideals), then it feels like a punch, even if the person doesn’t know me or how deeply I believe something. We cannot disregard that. Those are real feelings, and may come from experience where threat of actual violence (or actual violence!) in fact occurred. So what I may see is an expression of an idea, you may see as a precursor to violence.

This is why I say that what we are wrestling with is where the line is. We see the line differently, sometimes because of experience, or lack thereof.

I am NOT advocating that you MUST see the line the same as me - that would just be another example of brutish behavior against which I will stand every time. I am saying that I am hopeful through discourse and a dispassionate considerations of each other’s experiences and positions, that we might be able to move closer and not farther away such that we are able to have open dialog without it devolving into virtual fisticuffs. That we have seen on this forum and elsewhere and I hope this thread does not go that way as it doesn’t help anything.

AND - I feel like we just hijacked the OP’s thread. Sorry about that, though I do understand why it went that way.

Yeah, I feel ya’, @ybmuG. And I think we are in agreement. I concede that there are things that I hold as deep beliefs and when others oppose or challenge them I do understand how that could be interpreted as threatening.

But here’s how I’ve learned to deal with it: Recognizing that I am the only one with total control of my reaction, I can choose do one of two things.

1. I can model The Dude from the Big Lebowski and just take the “Yeah, well that’s just, like, your opinion, man” stance. Ignore that person, add another name to the “Knucklehead list” and move on with my pursuit of happiness. Or…

2. I can say, “You know what: I find that offensive and hurtful. And here’s why…” With luck, we’ll have a conversation. And maybe – just MAYBE – we can see each others’ point of view. Without luck, I’ll conclude the speaker is a dickwad and do everything in my power to avoid and marginalize them.

But I can’t imagine any circumstances (other than the four broad categories you outlined above) where prohibiting an individual’s freedom of expression is the long-term best approach.

And, finally, @tweezak: Apologies for hijacking your thread. I yield back the balance of my time.

@TrophyHusband Here’s my final comment then I’ll yield my time as well. It’s impossible for a community to have full freedom for POC and racists. That’s not my rule, that’s the definition of racism.

That’s just the most obvious example, but supporting stuff like this casts a lot of people out of the conversation. I personally don’t believe we have free speech at all unless EVERYONE is free which means bigoted speech has to go.

@DoctorOW @TrophyHusband
“I personally don’t believe we have free speech at all unless […] bigoted speech has to go.”

You don’t see the contradiction in that?

And I guess YOU get to decide what is “bigoted”?

@phendrick @TrophyHusband Like I said, I’m done discussing this. If you’re struggling to understand this, the terms to Google are “paradox of intolerance”.

@macromeh Your nose may have never been bloodied physically by words on a screen, but there’s a fair chance someone you know has had their rights and even their legitimacy as a person brought into legal question by people voted into office by people whose opinion was influenced by words on a screen.

@brainmist Well, that’s all part of the (imperfect) system, isn’t it? Votes have consequences, words influence votes. But suppressing the words you don’t like to get the votes you desire doesn’t seem like a good solution.

@macromeh Suppressing debunked “news” and hate speech to prevent the elevation of white supremacists isn’t a good idea?

Are you sure? Maybe we should take a vote on it.

@brainmist Umm, check out China for an example of how suppression of speech/beliefs can go terribly wrong. The trick is in who gets to decide what is OK and what is forbidden.

@macromeh My dude, setting the limits on individual rights where they infringe upon another is never an all or nothing proposition. You can limit the propagation of genocidal rhetoric without yourself automatically becoming genocidal.