Twitter trolls have a right to offend – but we don't have to listen

Storms on social media demonstrate we don't need laws to regulate free speech – social norms are enough

Internet outrage tells us more about how we ensure civil conduct face-to-face, than how we behave online.

People behave in strange ways online. But social media provides the clearest evidence of people behaving on their first instinct.

All that the internet has demonstrated is there were always people in the community who speak before they think, who are liberal with their outrage and don't understand proportion.

Once upon a time you didn't have to interact with them. Or we simply ignored them. The internet has just given them a platform without always being held to account. Their voice may appear louder. But they were always there.

Of course they have a right to speak. The oddity is why anyone listens to them, instead of doing what we've always done – ignored them.

The Australian's Chris Kenny calls it a "green-Left echo chamber". The News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt refers to it as a "sewer". Either way, of all social media platforms, Twitter provides the most immediate and spontaneous satisfaction for people to vent.

Sitting behind anonymous Twitter egg-profile portraits, there are some people who unrelentingly lash out and vomit abuse.

The subject doesn't seem to matter. The budget. The NBN. Joe Bullock. Any speech by the Greens. Tony Abbott's budgie smugglers. In response there are either howls of outrage or uncritical, effusive praise – depending on your perspective.

Few of us have significant time to spend on social media. But a small section seem to have it as their outlet. It's the tool that gives them a voice.

There are some who look for reasons to be outraged and offended. A cynic might argue they do so to have a fleeting moment of validation from their observation harvesting retweets and favourites.

But some look for outrage as a mechanism to demonise those they disagree with in the hope it will shut down debate.

Their behaviour justifies the spirit of Stephen Fry's dismissal of the idea of offence.

Fry argued: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that'. As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more … than a whine. 'I find that offensive'. It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase."

Fry's right; and the more offence is invoked as a means of criticising another's opinion, the more it is diluted as a justified criticism of public comment.

In reality offence is essential if we are to have free speech. We never need to defend free speech from the excessive use of "please" and "thank you".

Free speech needs to be defended only when people push boundaries. It is good that people push boundaries. It's necessary to challenge the status quo.

The capacity for those who use offence to steer discussion is based on how much people are prepared both to engage with them and bow to their will.

But the true benefit of internet outrage is that it reminds us how much we civilise our own conduct when we are held to account.

Of course, they are entitled to behave however they like. But the reality is that few would behave in such a repugnant manner when they are held accountable by others.

It's a reminder that we regulate speech outside laws. We self-regulate. Social norms civilise our conduct. The motivation is entirely selfish. We adjust our behaviour to avoid falling afoul of the negative judgement of others.

Irresponsible internet behaviour confirms the efficacy, importance and prevalence of social norms in guiding our behaviour without us thinking, and outside the law.

• Tim Wilson will participate in a session on The Art of Indignation with Michael Leunig, Richard King and Neil James on Saturday 24 May at Sydney writers' festival. Details here