Originally posted by Q:
I'm all for free speech. Therefore I submit that Truthseeker has every right to say whatever he wants as long as he directs his threads to the appropriate forum. I had asked Porfiry to appoint a moderator for the Math/Physics forum so that Truthseekers threads could be moved to the appropriate forum if need be. I have not heard anything back. But I digress.
The following quote is as relevant to this and any other forum as it was in its original context. We should always keep it in the back of our minds. The second part of the quote is appropriate to Truthseeker and anyone else we might consider.
This should be adequate in supporting the Q's decision.
The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.
Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971)
~~~
I’m all for free speech, too. Don’t think that’s what the real issue is, however.
The best way to counter obnoxious speech is not a “set in stone” rule or remedy. Consider the environment. This is not Washington D.C. where those with opposing views are standing on opposite sides of the street shouting at one another until the police arrive or until one side has argued the other into a physical retreat. Anyone posting on an Internet forum has the advantage of anonymity; a form of protection; a reduced risk of being made to stop when crossing some lines of normal, civilized behavior. And every single member here has a choice: to post obnoxiously, to reply obnoxiously, to behave civilly, maturely, to ignore, etc.
Those who are being obnoxious are likely to continue to do so for as long as anyone is willing to argue with them. They have no incentive to stop. These are
individuals not organizations. And these are individuals who have given little or no evidence to show they have any intention to do other than what they always have.
Those who would stand up for rationality--or against irrationality--need only look at the evidence. A braggart, a trouble-maker, a spammer, a game-player... these sorts have no justifiable reason to be as unrelentingly disruptive or obnoxious as they are, and yet they
are, and it appears that being so is their primary goal; their main purpose for posting anything. How much “reasoning” and “persuasion” is
too much?
If a preacher stands on a street corner shouting ‘hellfire and brimstone’ to too few people who respond or react, what does he do? He moves to another, busier street corner. If an abusive spouse finds that his weary, battered wife has disappeared never to return, he looks for another victim.
We are not a court of law, we are group of individuals, with individual choices. What does
your rational human mind tell you is the most productive thing to do in this situation?
The individuals being objected to here have their freedom of speech--and give every sign of understanding that they do. There is no need to think of taking it away from them. Let them speak. To an empty auditorium. No one is obligated to play a game that cannot be won; indeed, was never meant to be won by one who would come down on the side of "rationality."
In these kinds of situations, you win the game by
not playing at all.
Thx,
Counterbalance