A lot of bloggers have written about debates that have turned into liable suits. I’d like to make a post about something different for a change, two groups with opposing views had a productive discussion. If you are interested in a good discussion on the issue of Freedom of Speech involving 3 Libertarians and Warren Kinsella, check out this radio broadcast.

I’d like to take a moment here and talk about why civil discussions have a higher probability of occurring in certain settings. You know, it seems that when ever people with opposing views have a conversation in person, the discussion seems to be a lot more civilized. In fact, sometimes something completely unexpected happens, they might actually realize they are not that far apart in views from each other and might agree on a few things. I suppose its for the same reasons why business consultants will tell you to never ever to talk about something contentious through e-mail. E-mails happen to be terrible tools for discussing contentious points because both parties will inevitably misinterpret the tone of the other person’s message and boom, erupts a conflict. This is also true for blogs. There are of course exceptions and it depends on the individuals but I think for the most part this communications theory holds water based on the experiences that I’ve had and from what I’ve observed.

While blogs may sometimes be an effective tool to get your message out, don’t expect to have too many productive debates in the bloggerphere. I doubt thats what the participants have in minds anyway.