A Word on Censorship

Lately, in a few different situations, I've found myself opposing those who argue for untrammeled free speech in non-public spaces. My feelings on this have changed over time, but they are simple: moderating participation can contribute to the proliferation of discussions that might not otherwise have taken place. This is why I get pissed off when individuals whip out the "thought police" attack; this is why I don't think such spaces need "opposing views" to "keep them honest". Or, in other words:

The argument goes, and I've heard it a million times before, that disallowing unfettered free speech lessens the quality of debate. This? Is not true. And it's why there are amazingly clever, insightful, vibrant, hilarious, and often contentious (the echo chamber bit is really such bullshit) threads at Shakesville, and almost nothing but flamewars fueled by the misspelled, hate-filled, garbled rantings of the tragically stupid in "free speech zones" like the comments section of YouTube.

[...]

Further yet is the deeply amusing argument that my denying their "right" to engage in bulling and silencing makes me the enemy of free speech, with seemingly not a hint of awareness of the irony that they're demanding the ability to bully and silence other people under the auspices of "free speech." They're arguing for carte blance to quiet the voices they don't like, but mad at me for doing the same.

I do not think this is difficult to understand. Still, I've been accused of wanting to impose these rules where they shouldn't exist -- say, in a general sociology blog. My issue is that these rules do more to keep everyone on the same page than no rules at all do, because we don't all come at different issues from the same angle. It is incredibly easy for a liberal white dude like myself to want to talk about everything in a open, detached manner. Needless to say, this is not a universal experience. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to allow bigoted talk in a place discussing sociological issues, no matter how formally it is presented or how intellectual it sounds -- it makes it harder for certain people to participate.

Even if the stated goal of a discussion space is not a feminist one, if we want the most participation possible and want that participation to stay on track, then enforcing certain rules is the best way to do this. If people feel like they've got to be on the defensive just to engage in discussion, then the outcomes will be derailed conversations or a silencing of anyone who lacks the privilege to deal with the issues in a "rational" manner befitting of an objective gentleman.