I wrote the following essay because the subject of what constitutes tolerable speech even in private circles is becoming a major issue of controversy. It was written as a way to possibly dial down the temperature of the room by providing a few insights of how speech should work, as opposed to being a set of inflexible rules on the subject.
1) You have the right to be offended by speech, a work of art or any other expression of opinion;
2) You also have the right to not be offended by that same speech, work of art or opinion;
3) However, you do not have a right to consider your standards for what is offensive so universal as to preclude anyone else expressing themselves merely because that form of expression is personally offensive to you.
4) Utilizing the government - whether it's a local library board, a village board or a state or Federal legislature - to ban forms of speech you find offensive is not only unconstitutional, but is ethically vacuous and ultimately a waste of time for all concerned;
5) However, certain forms of speech that are not protected by constitutional law, such as serious threats of assault and murder, pedophilic imagery, unsolicited sexting and others are unlawful for a reason. Defending them as forms of speech protected by the First Amendment is not only factually incorrect but is complete asinine.
6) Private concerns such as online messaging boards, social media and publishing companies are under no obligation to disseminate communications or publications that violate their Terms of Service or their own editorial policies. Users or readers displeased by this fact should look elsewhere for their online socializing or reading material.
7) That being said, those terms and policies should be made clear up front so as to not catch users or readers in a trap of wasting time or paying money up front for content that falls well short of what was promised or implied. Likewise, bodies such as ISPs or social media outlets should have clearly established policies concerning rules of unacceptable behavior that will result in a suspension or revocation of service, with amendments to those rules being made clear to all in order to avoid arbitrary "community standards" ultimately unknown to no one except the owner of the outlet (i.e., the "Facebook algorithm effect").
8) No one is perfect. Anyone making a statement or a joke that comes off as obnoxious should not be presupposed to have done it out of maliciousness, especially if they genuinely apologised for the unintended insult.
9) However, when someone insists on being repeatedly obnoxious to a targeted individual or group in order to garner an angry reaction, they're being anything from childish to openly displaying their bigotry. Actions ranging from calling them out to shunning them outright are justified, and anyone who insists on feeling wronged for provoking such retaliation is free to get over themselves.
10) Anyone incapable of civil discourse towards someone who has made a good-faith effort at it themselves ultimately deserve to be ignored, called out for such behavior or shunned until they can improve on their social skills. However, in any group setting on social media, an owner of an individual wall or account or a moderator of a group has every right to step in when an argument spins out of control. No one likes to see something they enjoy detoriate to the point of not being enjoyable. Likewise, participants in a heated online argument not capable of understanding this fact should've never been allowed to post to that wall or forum in the first place if their only purpose was to ruin it for everybody else.
