Yikes. You use words like "regular society" with such confidence.

You, like other conservatives (don't flinch, your views as expressed above belie your ideology), feel compelled to correct people that stray from your notion of acceptable speech. It's ok, apparently this is a natural human tendency.

I don't see any value whatsoever in regulating speech.

There is, however, one argument for your viewpoint. Since this board is moderated, the website operator (cthree, I guess)is potentially liable for the materials posted on the site. That means that if someone posts defamatory materials or materials infringing someone else's copyright, then cthree (and probably you, too) can potentially be held responsible for those violations of law.

If on the other hand, the website operator did not exercise any editorial control over the board's content, there would be a much better argument that cthree falls within the "safe harbor" provisions that protect online service providers.

SO, you are, to some extent, justified in protecting cthree and yourself (and the other mods) from violating existing laws. Of course, your impulse to correct behavior is what brings you into the scope of those laws, but that is your choice. (And since the question was openly debated, this was the choice of the majority of the board, I think.)

All this to say that my objection is based on my beliefs about speech, not an indictment of your moderating skills or anyone's right to disapprove of another's views.

As for your final point: yes, aggressive moderation will drive valued users away from this place. I guarantee it.

 

Actually, when it comes to social issues I'm very liberal, but that's not really the point. I just want ot give one example in the value of regulating speech (though it doesn't apply to this board). The common example of crying fire in a crowded movie theater is a prime example. Also, I agree that aggressive moderating will drive people away, but I don't feel we're really being all that aggressive...that of course, is subjective.

Jay

 

Ok, I'm cooling down now...ahhhhh. Much better.

You mentioned two examples: (a) a bomb recipe, and (b) shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. In both cases, the policies protecting public safety outweigh the right to free speech.

How are these analogous to the moderation that takes place on this board?

 

I mentioned that the examples weren't directly analogous, just showing that there does need to be some limits. You stated that the internet should be ruled by anarchy...I was just showing you how it shouldn't be any different than our real society. Since the internet is inclusive in "real" society, it should have the same rules. You can't go screaming profanities in public, you shouldn't be able to here as well. Your freedom extends until it starts to harm someone else...once you do, then it must be curbed.

Jay

 

Hey Pig:

"OINK!!!"

Laird

(Hope I didn't offend any real pigs, heavens forbid)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunchild:
[B]Ok, I'm cooling down now...ahhhhh.

 

Just for the record cthree, this is actually an example of how to have an argument on the boards...talk about the points, and don't make it a personal thing. I haven't taken any of it personally, and hope that Sunchild hasn't either.

Jay

 

And well done, Jay. Though Sunchild, I don't think your supposed insights into others beliefs make much sense whatsoever.
Rationalize and philosophize all you want, the point we make is that yes, this IS a board devoted to the S2000, though we do have designated forums for different topics.
Should something get out-of-line to the point of needless banter, it WILL be dealt with.

I'd hardly call that political or Communist or whatever term you or anyone else will no doubt come up with... It's simply a very normal attempt at civility. In the Webster's sense of the term.

We all know that people take things way too seriously in places like this. Thus, rules are put in place.

-S2-

 

Hey Laird:

I appreciate your insults, they keep me on my toes.

 

A few things:

cthree, I'm only arguing this on a very high level. I haven't had any experiences personally that would require off-line complaints. If I did, though, I appreciate your willingness to hear them.

I am just trying to represent the point of view that controlling speech anywhere for any reason is a dangerous practice and should be reserved for situations where it is absolutely necessary.

siper2, if I haven't made any sense to you, that's my fault for being unclear.

jay li, I don't mean to attack you personally, and I don't take any of this personally myself. When I called you a conservative, I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. I just meant that the position you were taking was a traditionally conservative position (i.e., one that a conservative Justice might happily articulate in the Supreme Court).

Finally, (and I hate to do this), the dictionary definition of civility is "politeness" or "curteous behavior". Politeness is a notion that varies from person to person and from culture to culture. There are people from all over the world on this board, and from all walks of life.

My only point is that I prefer a forum where the notion of "politeness" is regulated by the group as a whole through feedback and discussion, rather than by a few through censorship.

(Yes, locking a thread is censorship. Fortunately, this board is much better than the other since the moderators are smart enough to take the locked threads into OT.)

Without offending anyone or accusing them of anything, I just wanted to make the point that I believe that the only role moderators should play is to protect the community from posts that are illegal or dangerous. No less, no more.