Heh. I heard about one of these. I suspect there's a tension between the right of people to free speech and action on the one hand, and the right of people to not be offended on the other.
I tend to wander off in the direction of free speech, but that doesn't mean that speech should remain unchallenged. Specifically, I would abhor any moves to restrict what people can legally say (give or take slander, direct or implied threats of violence, shouting fire in crowded theatre), but social pressure is potentially acceptable, especially where the speech reinforces a power differential (i.e. racism, sexism etc.). I also don't think people realise that internet pile-ons can bring a power dynamic and privilege into play that are the opposite of those being railed against.
You'll note I didn't use the word consent above. Viewing other people being confused about or even deliberately refusing to use one's preferred terminology and identity as a breach of consent and equivalent to physical assault is utterly inimical to free speech, and may even hurt wider acceptance and understanding of the identity in question. Yes, it may cause upset and emotional hurt. But people don't get to dictate what everyone else thinks and says about them. That's not how it works.
Free action is more problematic, but it's late and I should be starting work.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 11:23 pm (UTC)I tend to wander off in the direction of free speech, but that doesn't mean that speech should remain unchallenged. Specifically, I would abhor any moves to restrict what people can legally say (give or take slander, direct or implied threats of violence, shouting fire in crowded theatre), but social pressure is potentially acceptable, especially where the speech reinforces a power differential (i.e. racism, sexism etc.). I also don't think people realise that internet pile-ons can bring a power dynamic and privilege into play that are the opposite of those being railed against.
You'll note I didn't use the word consent above. Viewing other people being confused about or even deliberately refusing to use one's preferred terminology and identity as a breach of consent and equivalent to physical assault is utterly inimical to free speech, and may even hurt wider acceptance and understanding of the identity in question. Yes, it may cause upset and emotional hurt. But people don't get to dictate what everyone else thinks and says about them. That's not how it works.
Free action is more problematic, but it's late and I should be starting work.