Originally Posted by
Endus
If it isn't unlawful speech, like an actual threat or libel/slander or the like, then the reason it's "not easily rectified in a court of law" is because it's lawful, protected conduct. It might be rude and mean-spirited. It might be targeted at the individual rather than their work. Doesn't matter. Still free speech.
If it is unlawful, I've been pretty clear in other threads that I have no patience for threats of violence over the Internet and don't think anonymity should be a protection; all such threats under a cloud of anonymity should be treated as potentially real, and that means they should be legally actionable. Charge the users doing this. I'm totally fine with that.
But if it's not a legal issue? Then it's free speech. They're just being mean to you on the Internet. Does that suck? Sure. Could they get banned from that social media for acting that way? Probably. Is it "silencing" you, or in any way an attack on your own freedom of speech? No. Categorically not.
You know when they say "counter speech with speech"? This is what that looks like. Freedom of speech isn't about restricting speech to polite discussion on topics all involved have agreed to. It's messy and dirty and . . . free.
Hell, if that kind of shit could "silence" people, I wouldn't have 63,000 posts here.
Edit: Because I can see a counter-argument coming, let me proactively state that I am not taking a stance of "it's technically legal now so should always be legal", where the current legality of a thing is circularly used to defend its legality. If you want to try and make a case that being mean on the Internet should literally be illegal, with legal penalties, whether civil or criminal, go nuts. I don't think you'll get far with that particular case, but unless you can make an argument that mean-spirited speech should be unlawful, I don't see how the letter writers have any kind of valid position; they're arguing to restrict free speech to protect their own speech, it's an argument to secure their own power and influence at the expense of their detractors.