Thesis:
These aren't necessarily consequences, but
possibilities.
Brainstorm:
If you say free speech
automatically leads to flaming and verbal violence you can't be right, because history proves opposite (I know you said "worst case..."). Take a look at Burma (the monks) VS Denmark (the drawing of Mohammed). People might
abuse their right of free speech, but they don't always tend to. There are lots of examples of communities that work without any restrictions like, I believe, RevSoft or other forums. Of course, we don't allow discrimination (you may argue against this) or other
illegal behaviour, but I think that people can restict themselves by not discriminating against others, because they expect the same
unspoken rules being applied to them, too. Sometimes, flaming etc. is not discriminating (if it's a joke or meant as constructive criticism). Sometimes it is discriminating or appears to be. Sometimes one can't tell. Sometimes people overreact. Sometimes people exaggerate and go over the top (nikky or whoever). You can protect yourself by pushing new laws (rules, restrictions), but then you force people, which is bad (my interpretation). It's like the church: Ten rules force (or rather want) people to be "good". But you're right, people kill - regardless of those rules. You took opposition to (total) free speech. You try to hide from the bloody part of the knife by breaking it off, instead of washing it. You avoid conflicts by negating them (e.g. banning people). Yet, I would have done the same. People who discriminate are the world's worst case scenario (next to global warming and so on ^^).
Comment:
Sometimes I use too many parentheses
.
I didn't want to offend, but have a good conversation.
Show Posts
?
.