Socially acceptable views

Yesterday Blog de Esquerda II closed and there were a series of good posts from the group who have been writing over a number of years. There is one by Jorge Palinhos about blogs that got me thinking. He said that while he agreed that blogs are a space for self-expression and civic action, he hesitated about agreeing that blogs are a space for freedom of expression. The reason for his hesitation is:

"because public explosure implies being accountable, giving a face to what you write and having to think about who you are writing for. And this implies restricting freedom in exchange for social acceptance."

(My translation of "Porque a exposição pública implica ter de prestar contas, dar a cara pelo que se escreve e ter de pensar para quem se escreve. E isso implica restringir a liberdade, em troca de aceitação social.")

My question is: what about those communities where social acceptance comes from freely expressing your ideas and from listening to other people freely expressing their views? What about those communities where diverse views are seen as a first (socially acceptable) step in looking at situations in different ways and which might lead to creative or transformative dialogue?

The idea that you have to restrict your freedom of expression in exchange for social acceptance comes with the notion that an opinion or something written is un-negotiable; at its most democratic it's a truth to be debated. It comes from the idea that there are facts and counter-facts, affiliations or challenges by the person who expresses a view.

I want to be socially accepted in the first community where I can freely express myself with a view to negotiating meaning and engaging in a progressive dialogue that might transcend my or any individual's view. It's what I call learning.

But Jorge is right - the problem is that we mostly find ourselves in communities where we need to say the right things and make the right affiliations in exchange for being socially accepted.