Perhaps that's true. But in my view, millenia of energy and innovation was expended in the real world to limit speech to less "dangerous" levels. Many places in the world control and terminate speech which threatens established institutions, like Venezuela apparently did with RCTV, or the US with Eugene Debs.
People learn conservative manners, are told by their parents not to fidget or look to the side (even if that helps them think better), how to conform, and so forth. Just to teach them effective communication skills for some given society. Some children who don't get along are even drugged.
The idea carries over into online discussion forums. Some believe that strong, centralized control is necessary, because people can not be trusted; maybe most people are good, but rotten apples require systems of control. While others tentatively believe that a decentralized system is possible, and point to success stories.
Take the reasoning of an anarchist magazine, justifying moderation:
"1) The internet tends to be a shitty place to have really good
discussion. The reason that the letters section of Anarchy:A
Journal of Desire Armed is enjoyable is because the amount of
effort that it takes to actually send in a letter also seems to be
tied to some willingness to have a more thoughtful, careful, and
interesting conversation. That is the only kind of discussion that
makes having a message board worth having.
"2) The sectarian nature of political discourse lends itself to
certain types of people dropping by, attacking the board, the
site, the magazine and then drifting by.
"What moderation is going to mean in this context is that one of
the editors of the magazine will be looking at each submission
before they are posted. There are many advantages (beyond the ones
listed above) to this approach. Conversations will happen at a
slower pace. The board will not overpopulate with wingnuts (just
the right amount of them...), etc, etc."
<http://www.anarchymag.org/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=37&func=view&id=1&catid=2>
Does this explanation allow for the possibility that, in the short time that the internet has existed, that maybe there'll be a solution to these problems? Where's the vaunted anarchist urge to improve the institutions they face? These justifications sound like the same ones you might hear from corporations and nation-states.
(And I should point out that it's weird for self-described anarchists to call others 'wingnuts.' What do many think of these people running around town like they were black-clad ninjas or something?)
Tayssir