----------------------------------------
Mental illness, free speech, unpopular opinions
August 24th, 2017
----------------------------------------


Mental Illness --

I've lately become aware of a trend on social media for people to hold up
their mental illnesses or spectrum diagnoses as badges of honor. It's
particularly noticble on Mastodon, and seems to overlap in increased
density with LGBT identification, especially in the non-binary or
gender-fluid groups. In the brief "about me" sections on bios, Asperger's
becomes one of the most defining characteristics of identity.

(Warning: Unpopular opinions to follow)

This has triggered a mix of emotional responses in me. In my
experience I've seen that type of behavior before, and from groups of
people I can see as analagous to the communities online. Unfortunately,
I'm very biased aganist those particular people from my personal life, but
not because of their identity, diganosis, issues, or abilities, but
because they were self-indulgent, attention-seeking, and annoying. One
woman that pops to mind immediately would happily walk to the center of
a room and fake feinting so she could publically attribute it to whatever
she was highlighting that week. She would cry at dinner if the
conversation had turned to a topic she didn't know about. Playing the
victim or the poor, suffering soul, was a defining part of her character.

I understand there are people who want to own their conditions as a way of
finding strength. I know that not everyone I see online with a bio ending
in "autistic" is putting it there for attention. I know I am facing a bias
developed through my own experiences in high school and college, where
people are more prone to be assholes trying to find their identity than
elsewhere in life. Despite all of these things, it still makes me cringe.
That is a limitation in myself.

Before wrapping up this little observation I will say this: if you are
highlighting your fibromyalgia to your friends or complaining about your
gluten intollerance, or whatever else, take a moment and ask yourself if
you're doing it for the right reasons. Are you sharing intimate knowledge
of yourself in a blog to help work through challenges, or talking to
a friend and seeking support? Are you drawing attention to the condition
to help educate people? Are you promoting better understanding of living
the way you do? Or, after all is said and done, are you hoping someone
will pay attention to you and treat you special?


Free Speech --

There's so much crazy in the world these days it's hard to state a strong
opinion on any topic without the "Actually" police coming in to fight you.
Arguments online or in person--of which there are plenty--descend again
and again into logical fallacy and ultimately go nowhere. Perhaps it's
a lack of education on formal rhetoric in the United States, or maybe it's
willful ignorance. Straw man, slippery-slope, ad hominem, false dilemma,
or Trump's favorite "what-about-ism" are permeating everything. It's so
hard to have a resonable discussion even if you find someone who really
wants to.

That brings me to free speech (sort of). I am an advocate for free speech,
especially a free press. I think it is incredibly important to avoid
dangerous power-grabbing at the hights of leadership. I also think
protected free speech is empowering for groups that would otherwise be
oppressed.

(Warning: Here be unpopular opinions)

Free speech, though, does not have an inherent morality. Much like
capitalism as an economic model, there is no right or wrong. In the United
States, from which I write this phost (thanks for the term Maiki), there
has been heated debate about the limits of free speech from almost the day
the bill of rights was signed. There are the purists who say there is no
limitation whatsoever on free speech, and there are those who will attempt
to apply a limited moral judgement on to the character of the term.

One of my favorite American leaders, Oliver Wendell Holmes, coined the
famous "shouting fire in a theater" example in a Supreme Court case about
people handing out fliers to young men showing them how to avoid the draft
during WWI. He also wrote the words used for almost all exemptions to free
speech used from that day on, "clear and present danger". Justice Holmes
was firmly in the second camp, which is where I find myself as well.

There are some types of speech I feel should not be protected because they
endanger.  In one sense you could say that the expression of those ideas
or that speeech is intended to limit the inalienable rights of other
individuals. It is speech that silences. That's a nice argument against
hate speech certainly, but I don't think it conveys enough coverage of the
types of speech Holmes saw in WWI. These were men attempting to subvert
the power of the nation to call forth defense from its population.

Most telling of all from that case is a sentiment that I feel has gone
undiscussed. In his summary, Holmes wrote, "when a nation is at war, many
things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its
effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and
that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
The Court unanimously upheld the idea that the speech itself may not have
been illegal at a time of peace. It was the circumstance of that speech,
the time and place, that lent to its criminality.

When we think about that framing of the events at Charlottesville, does it
have an impact into the words they are expressing? The claims of white
supremacists are intended to do harm to a community regardless of time and
place, surely. Is it more damaging now? Are the words of Trump? I think
we're experiencing such threats to our democracy in the ridicule and
suppression of the press and the institutional injustice against people of
color, that such talk that would normally be considered harmful now
presents a Clear and Present Danger to the United States of America.


One final note --

I haven't addressed private industry or technology and their role in free
speech or the suppression thereof. I do support the individal choice to
allow or not allow speech on a private platform. Google's decision to fire
the writer of the misogynist manifesto is a great example of this. He used
the company as a platform for his memo. Had he posted it on a personal
blog I might feel differently, but it's not always what the words say, but
how they are said, when they are said, and where they are said. The Daily
Stormer, a white supremacist inspired website, has hopped from host to
host trying to find a company who will allow their site to stay public. In
each case we are dealing with private companies offering these services,
and I agree that they are freely in their rights to establish their own
rules for what can be said or not said on their "land".

The internet as a network of machines is not controlled by the United
States, no matter how hard they try. The Daily Stormer has found a home on
the Tor network, much to their chagrin. The Tor Group, who I fully
endorse, are arguably on the other side of the free speech argument than
me. They believe in an fully unrestricted system, no matter how painful it
might be. I respect that decision while I disagree with it. In a direct
implementation of their own beliefs, they have created a system which
ensures that no one can censor information, not even them. I respect this
choice just as I repsect Godaddy and Google for theirs. I don't think this
is a contradiction at all.
.