There are topics floating around on Musing that I am not particularly fond of, or find no value in discussing, but I'm just one person. What I find of interest or relevant may very well be considered boring and immaterial by someone else.

Discussion, however, is healthy. If beliefs were to be imposed on others against their will, or things were to break out into a war of words like it has elsewhere on STEEM, where the comments are less about the merits or the pros and cons of an argument than they are about how idiotic or insane the other person is for thinking in such a way, I would say, don't take away free speech, but let's have some decorum.

Name calling isn't productive and only brings ill will.

Open conversation, getting to know what others think and why, and perhaps providing a different perspective based on experience, logic and knowledge, provides a healthy forum for debate and transfer of information. Squashing that rarely helps civilization to advance, grow or progress.

Rather, it puts the power, wealth and resources in the hands of the very few.

If it were decided that free speech should be curtailed here, and that some questions/answers should be altered or erased, the next question becomes, based on what criteria? Which means, whose belief system or morality is going to be used to decide what stays and what goes? Will consensus of the users be asked for and reached, or will it simply be imposed?

I think there's a whole can of worms that gets open any time we start talking about restricting what can be said, even when it's hurtful, erroneous or threatening. That kind of speech can be condemned, but if it's banned, the feelings and motivations tend to manifest in other ways, often violently. I don't know if that translates to questions and answers on musing, per se, but why limit free speech when it can just as effectively be countered by people who think differently, or ignored, because it's not worth a response?

As I mentioned above, I see all kinds of questions that I'd rather not see. I'm not sure what motivates people to ask those questions. Maybe they genuinely want people's opinions. Honestly, a lot of questions could be looked up on Google if it were just to gather information. People want to engage, even here. They want to know what people are thinking. They also want to attract attention to their question, so even otherwise salacious topics can be in order.

Whatever the reason, I would much prefer allowing the users to determine in which topics they will engage in and which they won't, rather than some form of limited free speech or soft censorship be practiced. Let the market, or in this case, the sensibilities of the users, decide.