I completely agree with your points regarding freedom of speech, but freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to disrupt and derail. I'd never dream of trying to have posts deleted or users banned simply because they are expressing unpopular opinions. The whole point of freedom of speech is protect unpopular opinions; popular opinions don't need protecting. I'm sure you've seen the relevant XKCD which explains it well.
This is argument is purely academic, and may even be off-topic some. It does pertain to the subject of trolling, and banning, and "banning for trolling," so I'll risk continuing with it.
While true, the first amendment (and similar speech protections) apply only to the governmental authority, that doesn't mean others can't adopt a comparable approach. If you mean
this XKCD, then yes, I've seen it and I must admit I have issues with it. The premise of the comic seems to argue that your protection to speech is only applicable to the government. Well, what is a government? Is it not a collection of individuals chosen to serve the common interests? Frequently the common interest isn't commonly known or accepted. Sometimes the minority voice is the only one speaking reason, which is why our laws protect that minority voice. However, our laws only have the authority to protect the minority voice from the legal ramifications, not from the general public's reactions.
My main issues with that comic are cataloged in the forth pane. The first thing written in that pane is factually wrong. Yelling at someone can be deemed as a violation of their rights. There are legal precedents that define it as "provocation." Boycotts, censorship, and banishment aren't a violation of anyone's rights, but is it right? Look at it from the perspective of someone with an unpopular opinion. The majority starts calling for your ban, calling for a boycott of your products, forcing your publishers into cancelling your TV shows, radio shows, or podcost, and even threaten to boycott your sponsors. Just because they don't like what you have to say. Even if what you have to say is beneficial to the majority, or in their best interest, they don't like it and make a huge fuss to prevent you from speaking them again.
The reason I find such reactions destructive is because popular opinion has a way of becoming legislation. It's a slippery slope. People who react so vehemently to words with which they disagree are far more dangerous than any words ever spoken.
So lets take the discussion back to this forum; here we have a community that's common tie is financial freedom. If you care about financial freedom you probably care about free speech, smaller governments, self reliance, and independence. Maybe. We have this opportunity to create a virtual civilization here on the internet where we get to put our principals to the test. Exercise our convictions. Can they pass the test? As irritating and frustrating dissenting points of view can be, can we force ourselves to tolerate them for the overall benefit of liberty?
However, CH/TOAA (as an example), has literally been posting the same nonsense regarding trust/merit/gangs/inner circles/etc. for over a year now. Any thread remotely related to merit or trust, he shows up with the same wall of nonsense, and the thread is rapidly derailed. I don't know of anyone who has reasonably defended that, or possibly could, as "not trolling".
You won't catch me defending the methods, or what he has to say. But I can't in good conscience, justify banning him for being an irritant and yes, a troll. Speaking of CH, has anyone else noticed how quite it's been the last few days?
