The Law of Biology states:

An organism will do anything it can.

The hypothetical and highly imaginary Law of Ethics states:

Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should.

BZZT! Shock administered to test subject. The word “should” is disallowed. You lose a turn. Go back to START.

Okay. How far back should I go?

Hmm. No need to be excessive. How about the day your slimy species grew legs, became amphibious and hauled itself up out of the primordial ooze and lay panting on the beach?

So yeah, the other day I became embroiled in a discussion on Twitter about free speech. It all started when a person I follow stated they were under attack by some haters. Not only that, but she had just written a piece about how the haters were attacking her supporters, too. Hate by proxy, I guess. Adding my two cents, I responded with this pearl of wisdom:

“You have the right to your voice. Online harassers shouldn’t be allowed to operate with impunity.”

Naturally, as if to prove her point, I picked up some criticism of my own. I then got involved in a surprisingly civil discussion about the perils of too much free speech and what, if anything, constitutes “hate speech.” I began by asking my new-found critic a simple question: Where do YOU draw the line on anonymous online free speech?

His reply? “I don’t. Sticks and stones…”

No limits on free speech? None??? Such is the world of absolutes that some find friendly. This got me to thinking. Twitter, alas, was too limiting of a medium to try to explore some complicated concepts, so this post was born.

What would a world with no limits on free speech look like? Warning: This isn’t going to be pretty.
Continue reading →