This past weekend I managed to ruffle a few feathers while making
some comments on Facebook. That's not so odd in itself. What is odd is
that some of the feathers ruffled belonged to people I loved and
respected, with objections I never saw coming. When something like that
happens, a fellow has two choices. He can either retreat into paranoia,
resolved that everyone is against him, or he can a good, long look at
himself, his message, and his methods and try to figure what is wrong or
what might desperately need improvement. While the first response is
something of a reflex that people take when dealing with their own
issues, it seldom results in any real improvement. That leaves the
second which, while more painful, at least gives the possibility of
positive outcome. It was worth a shot.
The basic
argument, at least as I understand it, is the view that people should
not be subjected to opinions or discussions that might cause them
discomfort outside of a forum strictly reserved for such topics. So, for
example, if two members of a dog-walking page have a disagreement over
traditional marriage vs. gay marriage, there is no reasonable
justification for bring any of that discussion onto the dog-walking
page.
It's a view that I'm sympathetic to. Many of us
grew up with a different form of the same type of thing. Usually it was
along the lines of "Don't discuss politics or religion at the family
Christmas dinner. It will just upset people." And there was more than a
little truth in it. I'm sure that in many cases where people did decide
to violate that taboo, a lot of people went home upset. What I have now
come to question, however, is does the chance of upset justify the
enforced silence?
Consider a hypothetical: A person or
group is engaging in conduct that is not illegal, but it is harmful to
the surrounding community economically and physically, that reduces the
legal rights and privileges of all of the citizenry. The person refuses
to accept any and all evidence that said conduct is harmful, but instead
goes through great pains to declare it good, beneficial, and moral at
every turn because he has convinced himself that is the case. The person
will respond with hostility to any suggestion otherwise, and will use
any tools available to suppress views counter to his own.
It
seems like a lot to swallow, doesn't it. That's the hypothetical
situation. Here is the hypothetical question: Given the attitude
involved, is there any venue where the person can be approached to
settle differences or discuss the matter where an "inappropriate" ruckus
will not occur?
It's a serious question, and one we
need to think about in a serious manner. Because in "polite" society,
the making of a public scene is never considered "appropriate."
Therefore, if we know that broaching a discussion pretty much anywhere
is likely to cause "a scene," then it is considered "inappropriate." But
that leaves us with a very big problem indeed. That basically renders
any forum as "inappropriate" for serious discussion.
So,
while it does not technically amount to censoring speech, the affect is
very close to the same thing. The result, long term, is that the
unreasonable are free to make any statement, distortion, or lie on
behalf of their cause. The reasonable are expected to, and often do,
check themselves to preserve a tone of public civility. And the society
spirals outward, ever farther into the realms of insanity.
I'm
trying hard to balance these concerns, to come up with some kind of
standard that makes sense. Frankly, I'm not having much luck at the
moment. Settling these conflicts at the ballot box is not a practical
solution. Unless the case is made publicly prior to the election, the
louder party often holds sway.
And unlike times past,
our government is showing less concern about the people's rights while
flaunting the law and gathering more power for itself. We can no longer
count on maintaining our freedoms of speech, of religion, of no
unreasonable search and seizure simply because it is guaranteed in the
Constitution. The men of the government have declared themselves above
it, with no reasonable hope of return soon.
It's up to
us. The citizenry. Where the changes are required, we are the ones that
must institute them, but such changes are not generally pleasant and the
discussions that surround them are not polite. So again I wonder: Where
can we have those discussions? How much will we limit ourselves as far
as engaging those who stand against us?
Where can we appropriately be inappropriate?
No comments:
Post a Comment