The operative word is "force" which tends to translate to threatening harm or violence. At which point, one tends to contest the prerogative of dominant authority which is usually a sovereign nation state. Depending on where you live, this prerogative is legitimized through a democratically elected mandate and codified in a constitution.
This principle sanctions a state to prosecute private citizens exerting violence against each other over differing opinions, beliefs and so on in front of a court of law (separation of powers!)
The 1st amendment is the cornerstone, in that it protects private citizens from that same legitimate authority trying to curtail freedom of speech by passing laws that do so, or by sanctioning violence against people who hold particular opinions.
... which is why I posted the cartoon.
The 1st amendment doesn't shield anyone from criticism, feedback or being ignored by others. If Mastodon instances block or blacklist each other, the principle of free speech wasn't violated. What really happened is different groups of private individuals deciding to stop listening or acknowledging other groups of individuals.
Is this a morally right or even healthy thing to do? That's highly debatable, depends heavily on the context and who you're talking to and I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Your mileage may vary, as is always when confronted with murky human behaviour.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24036190
The operative word is "force" which tends to translate to threatening harm or violence. At which point, one tends to contest the prerogative of dominant authority which is usually a sovereign nation state. Depending on where you live, this prerogative is legitimized through a democratically elected mandate and codified in a constitution.
This principle sanctions a state to prosecute private citizens exerting violence against each other over differing opinions, beliefs and so on in front of a court of law (separation of powers!)
The 1st amendment is the cornerstone, in that it protects private citizens from that same legitimate authority trying to curtail freedom of speech by passing laws that do so, or by sanctioning violence against people who hold particular opinions.
... which is why I posted the cartoon.
The 1st amendment doesn't shield anyone from criticism, feedback or being ignored by others. If Mastodon instances block or blacklist each other, the principle of free speech wasn't violated. What really happened is different groups of private individuals deciding to stop listening or acknowledging other groups of individuals.
Is this a morally right or even healthy thing to do? That's highly debatable, depends heavily on the context and who you're talking to and I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Your mileage may vary, as is always when confronted with murky human behaviour.