Long ago in a far away galaxy, before the net, prigs began discussing discussion.

The brutality of public debate on the internet is due to one fact above all — the option of anonymity. The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators’ identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticised by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation.

Moderate opinion tends to be based on a more nuanced and thoughtful view of the world and is more inclined to consider alternative views. Yet these are precisely the contributions excluded from discussion by the bullying culture of online forums. There is little scope for the back-and-forward of debate when the normal social rules of respect and reciprocity do not apply.

Nonsense. That's why bozo filters were invented. Even when you don't have software affordances to enforce your filters it's trivially simple to ignore bozos.

It is simply not true that there are any public forums - in cyberspace or meetspace - where priggish concepts of decorum are observed. Someone will always throw a shoe at you. That's why they invented gated communities with bouncers to throw the rowdy folks out.

Some of the best discussions I have read were redolent of troll stench, but among the impotent trolls real humans discussed interesting and sometimes important subjects, while simply ignoring the trolls. If you are the only human in a discussion then there's nothing to say to anyone. No matter, there are other discussions.

It may be that this harsh reality is unattractive to you and so you may not wish to participate. Your choice. But be realistic: the world will not miss you.

To be sure, there are corners of the World Wide Web where communities with common interests engage in civilised discussion, where opinions are formed and changed. Yet there is always a danger that these polite exchanges will be gate-crashed by an opinionated cyber thug roaming the net.

If free speech means no more than the absence of restrictions on people using public forums to say whatever they want, and however they want, then the Internet is the promised boon. But if free speech means encouraging a free-flowing dialogue that draws the public into an exploration of alternative ideas and enriches civic culture, then the Internet is its enemy.

Free speech means free speech. It will sometimes be decorous and sometimes not. There is no way that the public net can be an enemy of free speech. That's just silly. However, prigs seeking to impose rules that privilege their narrow conception of free speech are enemies of all speech.

You can't have it both ways. You can't redefine free speech as some subset of speech that pleases you. It's free or it isn't. Fobbing regulated speech off on society as free speech is new-speak.

The better approach for those of tender sensibilities is to patronize private clubs where class and other distinctions are observed and enforced. This is free association, just as important as free speech. You can cower in walled gardens with others who are similarly inclined and listen to the echoes as much as you wish. It can be pleasant, restful, and even sometimes moderately stimulating. There are many application systems that do this, and many private communities in existence. If there are specific others that you would like to talk with you can invite them into the garden, even if only on a visitors pass which expires in time.

All of this was worked out decades ago, but net newbies often don't take the time to educate themselves or observe the already established rules of netiquette. In this sense they are the trolls.