Anyone who has been following events over at Dioclese’s place recently will be aware that freedom of speech has raised its head again. It’s the usual stuff, the failure to understand what, exactly freedom of speech means and consequently accusations of censorship and hypocrisy.
Firstly, the Churchill quote Dioclese refers to; anyone, and everyone who has ever visited a forum or blog will have come across this. Disagreement is seen as bullying or censoring. The first time someone accused me of attacking their freedom of speech it took me aback. All I had done was politely disagree with the individual, nothing more. So, yeah, Churchill got that one right.
But, and this is important, freedom of speech applies only to governments. It does not apply to individuals nor does it apply to private businesses. So, sure, you have the right to say what you like without being arrested under free speech principles, but you do not have the right to a platform and you do not have the right to be heard. So, if people want to ignore you, they may. If people choose not to allow you to spout your single-issue, tedious shite on their space, they are free to remove such comments and impel you to leave.
The accusation when this happens is one of hypocrisy – libertarians champion free speech and then “censor” critical comments. Nope. Not true. Libertarians are campaigning for the right to speak freely without being arrested. Unless anyone is arresting you for trolling a website, simply removing your comments or banning you is not impinging on free speech and they are not hypocrites for doing so, because, and I say it again, they are campaigning for freedom from the government, not private individuals who choose to moderate their websites.
Besides, no one wants to have to wade through long, tedious, off-topic, barely literate, single-issue obsessive dross to get to the discussion in hand.
“No one wants to have to wade through long, tedious, off-topic, barely literate, single-issue obsessive dross to get to the discussion in hand.”
Not to mention the ALL CAPS posters and those who earn whatever from their computer every day. Heavy sigh.
If these purveyors of tedious tantrums were true champions of free speech, wouldn’t they have their own blogs?
Ultimately, that was the challenge offered to Rickie/Dickie Doubleday. He won’t of course. He prefers to pollute other people’s places.
I see Mr. D has at long last sussed that he’s being used. Shifted to wordpress today and used the same log in technique as Leg’s.
My suspicion is he’ll have the devil’s own job handling the one who uses variants of Richard. He tends to explode with e-mails and false handles.
What’s been obvious to most of us for some time is he’s hosting a vendetta by an obsessive. Way past its sell by date too.
It was only a matter of time. Rickie Dickie Tavvy overplayed his hand. He always does. All he had to do was stay on topic and he’d have been fine, but he never learns.
I understand and admire Dioclese’s desire to maintain free, open unmoderated discussion. Unfortunately there will always be someone who abuses it.
Well, so far all seems quiet. However, as Dioclese is using first post moderation, the rest of us will see nothing going on. Which is the point, of course.
Very glib.
But when you have to pick your words it is not fear of arrest that gives you pause. It is the attack you can expect and the risk to your employment.
Words like racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc are used like clubs to force state ideas on the common folk
Britain was once worth defending – now it is a piece of real estate.
Actually the same thing. Without hate speech laws, people could be more free to express themselves. The Twitter mob can be dealt with by fronting it up if it wasn’t for those pernicious laws. And, frankly, most employers wouldn’t give a damn.
When I had a blog I let Rickie play out over there for a time. He actually thanked me for not calling him a troll.
Then he started using my gaff to insult all the other bloggers who wouldn’t let him post. I fucked him off at that point and he got very upset and confused and brought out all the accusations of censorship.
I see no reason for my blog (or anyone elses) to become a platform for one hate filled muppet. He can start his own blog for that.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Just maybe not here, okay?
As a matter of interest, that quote isn’t from Voltaire, but a biographer of Voltaire, an 19th / 20th Century English writer named Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Well I never.
Yup to both. The problem with Rickie was that his screeds were wildly off-topic and no one was remotely interested. It made Dioclese’s blog a less pleasant place to visit.
As has been mentioned – including to Rickie directly – he can set his own blog up and spew crap.
His behaviour’s no different from a guest in one’s home becoming obnoxious. Even the most tolerant of hosts has no choice but to ask the guest to leave.