Political Bleep-posting—It’s Okay; It’s Not Okay

[fluffy]

That's an interesting little read. There is an important distinction to be made between organized bleep-posting and simple trolling as we see often on this site. As an organized effort it can seriously hamper potentially constructive discussion, this is not uncommon among those supporting a politically unpopular or morally disreputable position. In their minds better to disrupt a conversation you have no hope of gaining any support in than to just stay out of it. Now at the risk of being totally naive, I don't think any measure of sophisticated organization exists among the bleep-posters here at Castanet, and they're easy enough to pick out so at present they don't represent a serious impediment to discussion. Their sort of behavior comes part in parcel with internet discussion, people burdened with character flaws that tell them it's okay to act online in a manner they would never consider acting in face-to-face situations. While their aim is the same, to disrupt, their motivation is more one of personal gratification than anything politically motivated, politics is just a pathway for them. But a pathway it is, and we now live in an age where anyone can theoretically have instant access to an audience of billions. The temptation to abuse that privilege is obviously too much for many to ignore, whether it be at an individual level or as an organized effort to manipulate public opinion. This brings us to the quandry of Bill C-10, and the basic question of a right to free speech when the motivation of the speaker is on shaky moral ground.

Curses! The birth of the bleep and modern American censorship

"What the First Amendment really grants is the power of society to maintain its own standards over those of government. Over centuries, sometimes despite the most furious opposition, individuals have increased their participation and added the force of their lives, their words, and their ideas to the culture. And so the principle of free speech is growing, slowly and unsteadily, into the truth of its logic: each person, each member of the press, each citizen can believe, think, and speak independently and without fear of oppression."

>snip<

"The tug-of-war in the courts, in Congress and in the media over restrictions on free speech in broadcasting has altered very little since then. Justice William Brennan was still making Petrova’s argument in his dissent in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Supreme Court case involving George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” routine: “Whatever the minimal discomfort suffered by a listener who inadvertently tunes into a program he finds offensive during the brief interval before he can simply extend his arm and switch stations or flick the ‘off’ button, it is surely worth the candle to preserve the broadcaster’s right to send, and the right of those interested to receive, a message entitled to full First Amendment protection.”"

https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/27/4545 ... censorship

WARNING: The article in the link contains language some may find offensive.

At the end of the day, barring any actual illegal content, a poster has the right to express himself as he/she pleases, and the decision to listen or not sits with the reader/listener. The emergence of bleep-posting as a politcal tool is just another thing the savvy internet user must contend with in any search for truth.

[fluffy]

I didn't come to my position without some thought, and I note I'm still the only one who has taken "It's okay but..." position. There is a lot of thin ice in the free speech/censorship arena. Personally, I'm a bit of sticker for manners and do see those who can't express themselves without ridicule or insult as lower forms of life, but unless they stray into hate speech or libel they aren't breaking the law, and they still get a vote at election time. But these people aren't really the important part, there will always be jerks. The more important issue the possibility of organized disruption, which is definitely not okay in my mind but very tricky to deal with without falling through the thin ice I mentioned above.

[spooker]

I don't hold bleep-posting in much regard, and while I don't mark anyone "FOE" I can usually remember the pattern that users show around here ... it's sort of like viruses and harmful bacteria ... we need to be exposed to a bit of it so that our immune systems can learn to handle it ... just like trolling, we need to learn to not react to things but to respond if useful ... I wish more people had proper online filters but that doesn't seem to be the case ...

I could blather on but I'll try to keep this short and let people go back to reading other useful things ...

[Randall T]

When I'm attacked by a troll I try to simply ignore them. Taking away what they thrive on is the most effective way to deal with them. Then there are the ones that truly believe the trash they are peddling. Ignoring them is not always easy but limits the spread of their nonsense. Arguing with trolls and the like is unproductive and only enables them more.

[spooker]

When I'm attacked by a troll I try to simply ignore them. Taking away what they thrive on is the most effective way to deal with them. Then there are the ones that truly believe the trash they are peddling. Ignoring them is not always easy but limits the spread of their nonsense. Arguing with trolls and the like is unproductive and only enables them more.

There is a lot of advice for "don't respond" but some people take that as tacit approval ... I wish there was an easy answer