Free Speech

Often in Skypeland, one hears cries for "free speech". Of course, no speech is totally free. Many countries restrict speech to some extent. For example, a famous dictum which originates with an opinion written by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is "you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre" (from Schenk v. United States, 1919) .

However, most Skypeland venues are not actually "free speech zones". Often they are a place that someone owns and has paid to create and pays to maintain. Therefore, these venues are more akin to private property, where the owners of the private property get to set the rules. In spite of this, others still cry out for "free speech". Examples of instances when Skypeland visitors will probably not be accorded the right to say anything they wish with no restrictions include insulting those who own the room, or threatening those who own the room.

Interestingly, some of those who call out for "free speech" want to accord this privilege to those who try to use threats and intimidation to prevent the free speech of others. These proponents of "free speech" appear to be in favor of restricting the speech of certain groups, or of even destroying the venue in which the speech is taking place, all in the name of "free speech". Clearly, this sort of defeats the purpose of "free speech" if there is no place for the speech, or if "free speech" means that only one or two get to speak, and all others are discouraged from speaking.

Of course, the owners of a venue can decide which groups and views can be heard in their channel. However, it is interesting to me how little thought has gone into these blind demands for "free speech", almost every time I hear them. While these ideas sound good in principle, and I am usually in agreement with free speech, there are instances in which they are just plain ridiculous.

For example, L is one of those who demand that everyone in Skypeland have the right to say whatever they like. L has been dismissive of the suggestion that there are difficulties that might arise from various threats and harassment in Skypeland. L was told that a rumor was going around that he frequently appeared on web cam without his pants, and this offended assorted young ladies. L immediately bristled at this suggestion and said he wanted to see the evidence of this. Of course, the person recounting this story, whether it is accurate or not, is just exercising his right to "free speech".

Now if L had revealed other information about himself that might be pieced together to be able to identify him and his employer and his family and his friends, then a video of him appearing without his pants, or even an allegation that he is appearing without his pants on cam might be circulated to L's family, L's employer, the law enforcement officials in L's area, etc. Someone making threats to do this might be able to silence L and prevent him from discussing certain topics, effectively restricting his "free speech". If this were further escalated, by producing a fictitious video of L sexually abusing some child, or masturbating on cam, while talking about sexually abusing an underage child, things become more serious. L might be driven away from some internet forum, or at least silenced, because he wanted to allow any speech whatsoever.

And this would effectively negate the reason that he was demanding free speech in the first place. Allowing some forms of speech can essentially reduce the freedom of speech, not increase it.