Not everyone is Left OR Right, Black OR White, Religious OR Spiritual, nor the many other divides that are fabricated by the ego. Seems as if in today’s divisive world, everyone is on stage and no one is in the audience…unless they are the sizable minority seated invisibly because of fear of being lambasted or worse by the intolerant. Life need not be EITHER/OR (even though the book is good, by Soren Kierkegaard).
You know, I have been super reluctant to have government or courts stop fb, twitter, or any other social media from censoring people. I was viewing these social networks as private enterprises that should be free of governmental controls, lest the internet falls prey to governmental controls, too. But if some people walked into a business (that is open to the public) and a conversation ensued that is generally considered inflammatory, could the business owners censor them, kick them out, or demand they discuss things that better align with the beliefs of the business owners. Would that be appropriate?
So let's say they refuse to leave, continue shopping, and the conversation remains vigorous? If these folks were recently assigned group homework from their Political Science Professor and were to argue both sides of a question competently and to present a debate in class, notwithstanding whether they do or do not believe the position they were assigned to argue?
I remember such an assignment in a Speech Communication class, and the Professor was tricky. He found out what side of argument classmates believed in, and had them argue the side they didn't believe. He posited that a person didn't truly know their own position unless they know the side opposing it.
Isn't this what happens in court to get to the bottom of any issue?
Sure, hearing people talk about certain issues that are inflammatory is really hard to ignore, and could even create an experience that would alienate future shoppers and thus impact their bottom line, but so could objecting out loud to the people having the conversation. Who gets to be the arbiter in these situations?
However, Social Media is different. We use their website, but we have our own space, like MySpace. Who's business is it to interfere with the discussion when only people involved in the conversation are privy to it? Only friends can see the conversation. Like right now, I have a setting that allows my fb FRIENDS to read this post, and no one can read it that is not a friend, because my account is Private. Why should anyone censor this speech or expression?
I've seen vitriolic posts on friends' pages going on and on about people or issues that infuriate them. Now, if the comments were made in a public group, arguments could be made that they are using 'fighting words' or are threatening someone, akin to yelling the proverbial FIRE! in a theater and someone might get trampled on the way out. Do people have a right to trample people because they are afraid?
To me, all these arguments against speech are not worth blocking someone over. Adults need not trample or stalk someone online over it. If they are truly violent people, they probably wouldn't be my friend in the first place. But right or wrong aside, should I report these friends to fb and have them banned, punished or otherwise controlled for expressing ideas, no matter how messed up the ideas are? Me, I figure 'worst-case scenario' (with unhindered speech), at least I'll know who the crazies are because they are not forced underground to hide their perspectives.
The ideas that were hardest for me to hear also happened to be the ideas that challenged me the most to think deeply. I grew because of it. The first and the last pushups are always the hardest, but over time, we grow stronger muscles. Um, yeah, it's been a long time since I did an actual pushup.
Seriously, even the people we disagree with vehemently can, if we allow it, turn out to be really good friends if we give peace a chance.
