Free-speech debate swirls as officials block on social media

I know how dare me to think I'm supposed to have the individual rights I served for everyone else to supposedly have!

Most sites which push the boundaries of controversial social or political issues have specific agendas and specific methodologies in attaining their goals. Those who fall outside their established boundaries on these issues are typically shunned in one fashion or another.

This shunning may be through minimizing other view points, ignoring them, belittling them, or otherwise moving them away from the spotlight they have focused on their own concerns.

Which, in my opinion, is how you REALLY separate the wheat from the chaff over the issues of equality. "Equality" means just that...equal under the law. It goes both ways.

Fine examples which help separate the wheat from the chaff can be easily illustrated by observations of several current issues. Take the Black Lives Matter movement. The supposition is that Black lives are just as important as any other lives. And this is true. However, look what happens whenever anybody DARES to say "all lives matter", which is what equality is all about on this issue. There is an immediate backlash against this because it doesn't fit the BLM agenda and goals. There isn't even an attempt at lip service to the great "I Have a Dream" speech by the late Dr. Martin Luther King.

If a feminist dares to make statements that are not in full compliance with the mainstream feminist organizations...they're likewise shunned.

Politics? Yep, extreme polarization here with plenty of examples which can be cited.

Gays and lesbians? Interestingly, I think they (for the most part) avoided a significant fraction of this, but examples can still easily be found amongst the more extreme.

I daresay the same applies for transgender people who likewise express opinions or views that are not currently in strict alignment with the major transgender organizations and websites.

Personally, I find that sad. Equality goes both ways. Respect goes both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, DEMAND equality and respect while on the other hand DENY it to others. To do so puts the lie to your professed goals.

PO1 Robert Payne - Actually, if you block someone on Twitter, they cannot view your tweets. There are workarounds, but you run into the Public Records Act, again, as you've just created extra work for certain people to view tweets. The issue remains valid, as not everyone knows how to get back around to viewing the tweets, or any other form of social media for that matter.

PO1 Robert Payne - That's exactly what it means. If you block someone on your Twitter or your Facebook profile they can no longer view your profile, send you messages, etc. That's why the function is there so you can stop people from talking to you. I'm very surprised people don't know this. My ex husband was confused when he blocked my Facebook that he couldn't message or video chat our daughter. I said no shit - if you block a profile that means they can't communicate with you nor you them. That's the point.

PO1 Robert Payne - I don't really use Twitter either. I have one. I don't use it. But it's the same on Facebook.

On Facebook you can mute people's messages. You can't mute comments. You can hide comments. You can also set your postings to block certain people from seeing them but that wouldn't work here.

I think if someone is legitimately being hateful, threatening, obscene then yes, block that person. Just like you'd kick them out of a town hall if they were being a disturbance. But people just disagreeing...no.

PO1 Robert Payne - There is a mute function. It effectively makes a person's responses invisible on your time line. The public records laws preclude anyone form limiting your access to policy announcements and such (tweets in this case), but nowhere is there a guarantee that you can respond in a specific medium. Thus using the mute function would be totally above board. But knowing the difference and the ramifications of one over the other are not things I would expect of a 71 year old political neophyte. Therein lies the problem.