Censorship or No?

[Cosmo]

Both as a moderator and a forum member, I’ve been thinking about censorship recently. Simple topic, right? Nope. To make sure I understood the concept, I read various treatments of the topic by both sides of the coin. The architects of our very society argued this unendingly. I found out the bottom line is that censorship is one of those multi-faceted issues that people will never completely agree on.

It seems that each group of people needs to create their own definition and application of censorship. I’m interested in hearing where the folks here at Canadian Content want their forum to be along that continuum.

Personally, I hate censorship. I believe more in personal responsibility and accountability. I believe that people who do not have those qualities weed themselves out and end up leaving. Of course there are exceptions. Anyone zooming into the forum, posting a single reply or thread filled with anti-anything bile, then going away never to return needs to be turfed. Same with anyone purposefully inciting other members for no reason other than to get a rise out of them. Malicious behaviours like these in no way serve the general good of the forum.

On the other hand, I think that if a regular forum member holds unpopular views, no matter how unpopular, they need to be allowed self expression. If someone is prejudiced against a certain people, they should be able to reveal that. Everyone knows this is a middle to left leaning board, and anyone espousing strong right wing views or prejudice is going to be challenged here, but that is just good debate. I think exchanging views, no matter how distasteful I find them, is positive. And in my Pollyana optimism, I always harbour a secret hope that some of these hate filled people will change their views. It’s happened … people who hate homosexuals have become more tolerant just by knowing me.

(One) explanation is that it is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Professor Lee Bollinger is an advocate of this view and argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape "the intellectual character of the society."

This claim is to say that tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. Critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, even genocide. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I’m big on tolerance and lean that way. I think aside from a few really “bad” words and racial slurs, that people need the right to express themselves as they see fit.

What say everyone else????

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think it's really a matter censorship. It is more a matter of providing a safe place to post.

The censorship of dirty words is pretty fecking easy to get around. ;-) Being a Lenny Bruce fan I think the use of racial slurs can be a tool in fighting racism, so they must be regulated in the context of the post and should not be subjected to automatic censoring.

What needs to paid attention to is that small group of people who are coming here to disrupt threads, launch personal attacks, and generally cause problems. They need to be removed because what they are doing is, in fact, an attempt to censor views they do not agree with and do not want shared. Some of them are quite belligerent, some engage in what is best decribed as stalking, and others try to intimidate by taking posts and/or PMs from here and putting them up on other sites.

 

[Jo Canadian]

I'd say I'd have to vote for Censor only a few "bad" words and racial slurs.

And what I'm supposing by a few or bad would depend on the context that it is used, which in that case would be considered on a case by case basis, but I guess that's what the X report is for.

I'm sure we've all been in situations here where we've gotten a little verbal, but when things get personal I think PM's would be the way to handle it, especially if you wanna use all sorts of colourful language in your attacks.

:? Non specific/personal statements should at least be overlooked by the mods on that decision. Here's a good example of a nonspecific insult from way back when:

Who the hell teaches these apes to use computers?

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Censorship or No?

I don't think it's really a matter censorship. It is more a matter of providing a safe place to post.

The censorship of dirty words is pretty fecking easy to get around. ;-) Being a Lenny Bruce fan I think the use of racial slurs can be a tool in fighting racism, so they must be regulated in the context of the post and should not be subjected to automatic censoring.

What needs to paid attention to is that small group of people who are coming here to disrupt threads, launch personal attacks, and generally cause problems. They need to be removed because what they are doing is, in fact, an attempt to censor views they do not agree with and do not want shared. Some of them are quite belligerent, some engage in what is best decribed as stalking, and others try to intimidate by taking posts and/or PMs from here and putting them up on other sites.

I agree, Rev ... but what is the criteria for determining who is simply exercising self expression and who is disruptive and launching personal attacks? It's a tough call. Do people get one chance? Two? Seven? Do you need to be a member for a certain amount of time to criticize another member as opposed to those "newbies" who are banned members sneaking back in to cause trouble?

When do we censor these people? Common sense is part of it, for sure, but having a firm line will make this a safe place to post.

It's interesting because I have some very right wing views on things like gun control, yet have always found this an entirely safe place to post these unpopular views. This forum is a safe haven for me and I'd like it to be the same for others.

I know I could not be part of any forum that consistently attacked homosexuals. After a while you just get tired of defending yourself. At the same time, if someone has a problem with it, I encourage good, honest discussion. Where is that line, though? For me, it's when I feel uncomfortable in my own nest.

Good points, Rev.

I agree with you too, Jo. If people can't take a few insults, they are too sensitive for any but invite-only forums. There ARE people like that and I think they'd have problems anywhere free speech is accepted.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: Censorship or No?

What needs to paid attention to is that small group of people who are coming here to disrupt threads, launch personal attacks, and generally cause problems. They need to be removed because what they are doing is, in fact, an attempt to censor views they do not agree with and do not want shared. Some of them are quite belligerent, some engage in what is best decribed as stalking, and others try to intimidate by taking posts and/or PMs from here and putting them up on other sites.

 

[mrmom2]

I don't envy your position Cosmo .I'm glad I don't have to make the call .Hell I should have been fecking banned at least a dozen times :lol: :lol: Hey that fecking life

 

[Cosmo]

I don't envy your position Cosmo .I'm glad I don't have to make the call .Hell I should have been fecking banned at least a dozen times :lol: :lol: Hey that fecking life

Hey MrMom ... thanks for the kind words. I don't think you should have been banned at all. You get carried away (like we all do at times) but you don't cross the line.

Jo ... LOVE the troll cartoon! Always count on you to find the best ones!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree, Rev ... but what is the criteria for determining who is simply exercising self expression and who is disruptive and launching personal attacks?

I think that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some things that I consider definite signs, but I'm really not willing to post them on the open forum.

I also don't think that the responsibility should be left with one person. It's too easy to make mistakes either way.

 

[Cosmo]

I agree, Rev ... but what is the criteria for determining who is simply exercising self expression and who is disruptive and launching personal attacks?

I think that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some things that I consider definite signs, but I'm really not willing to post them on the open forum.

Good point, Rev ... you have this significant cult following that seems to stalk you around the internet just waiting for you to post something they can argue. I keep wondering how you got to be so damn famous!! Any pointers for us folks relegated to obscurity? I wanna be famous too!!!

I also don't think that the responsibility should be left with one person. It's too easy to make mistakes either way.

Agreed. But still, hearing how the forum population feels about stuff is the only way any group can be sure they are creating the best possible forum. As a mod, I am doing nothing more than serving the forum public. To do that, I gotta know how they feel.

Censorship is such a hot button issue for me that my reason for posting the thread was to help me sort through my own issues with it. Hearing other perspectives helps me. I hate censorship in any form, but realize that there is a need for some verbal boundaries.

I belong to forums that are extremely rigid ... no swearing, no controversial topics, no fighting. You have to be approved to join. They are kinda nice since it's a nice, easy place to gather info on my dog and my health. I also belong to other forums that are, shall we say, controversial. I've been caught up in some crazy ass arguments there, but free speech was a positive thing in that we were able to discuss our issues without censorship.

My question really is about discovering what the people here see as censorship and how much of it they need to feel safe and comfortable.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Good point, Rev ... you have this significant cult following that seems to stalk you around the internet just waiting for you to post something they can argue.

I'm not the only one. That's really the problem, it's the ideas they are trying to stop, not any single individual.

Censorship is such a hot button issue for me that my reason for posting the thread was to help me sort through my own issues with it. Hearing other perspectives helps me. I hate censorship in any form, but realize that there is a need for some verbal boundaries.

It depends a lot on the situation. For instance, I don't care if there are porn sites on the internet, but I don't think porn pictures should be posted here. That doesn't infringe on anybody's freedom of speech or expression because they can post those pictures or go and look at them elsewhere.

I've seen people that have been removed from here for launching personal attacks go elsewhere and complain that their freedom of speech has been compromised, yet they still have the freedom to go where that sort of thing is accepted and do what they will. Have they been censored? Not really. They've been prevented from behaving inappropriately in a certain venue.

 

[missile]

While I might disagree with some of you some of the time,I see no reason to attack some posters who use bad language..it's the haters who put me off.

 

[GreenGreta]

Maybe we should take votes on the termination of a member.

 

[missile]

Good idea! Survivor:Canadian Content

 

[Cosmo]

I'm not the only one. That's really the problem, it's the ideas they are trying to stop, not any single individual.

Ya, I know. I just think it's kinda funny that you have so much power when you don't even want it. If someone tried to amass a following like yours, it would be a monumental task, yet where ever you go in the cyber world you have a whole pack trailing behind you. Unfortunately many of them are malicious, but intent doesn't change the fact that they follow you.

It depends a lot on the situation. For instance, I don't care if there are porn sites on the internet, but I don't think porn pictures should be posted here. That doesn't infringe on anybody's freedom of speech or expression because they can post those pictures or go and look at them elsewhere.

I've seen people that have been removed from here for launching personal attacks go elsewhere and complain that their freedom of speech has been compromised, yet they still have the freedom to go where that sort of thing is accepted and do what they will. Have they been censored? Not really. They've been prevented from behaving inappropriately in a certain venue.

I agree that there is a huge amount of personal freedom on the net as a whole. My concern is with this little corner of the net.

I totally agree about not posting porn or links. That's readily available to anyone who wants it, and while even I enjoy a pretty picture now and then, it isn't part of my self expression. I can discuss it, but if anyone wants links they can PM me. I have no need to post them in open forum as a means of self expression.

So there's the root of my problem. I don't want porn posted here, but I am fine with someone posting an opinion that is hateful or prejudicial if they feel that way. On yet another hand, I wouldn't want links to the KKK or some other hate site posted here even if someone supported their theory. Yet if they posted their feelings about it, I would be fine. In fact I believe that discussion is the surest way to stop the problem. It involves people.

It's all so damn confusing. It's not an issue I've given a lot of in depth thought to until now.

This shows me yet again how valuable forums are in my life. I've spent a lot of time considering weighty issues that I would otherwise not have paid attention to. I find it fascinating to see how other people process these big questions.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Censorship or No?

Maybe we should take votes on the termination of a member.

Good suggestion, Greta, but if you've ever worked with a committee you know how hard it is to get anything done. By the time everyone was contacted, it was debated and a decision reached, all the damage would be done.

As mods we usually confer with one another before banning anyone. It's rarely done unilaterally. So in a sense that method is being used already.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Yet if they posted their feelings about it, I would be fine. In fact I believe that discussion is the surest way to stop the problem. It involves people.

A big part of the problem is that it is not their feelings though Cos...it's their grandaddy's and their daddy's feelings...if they were capable of independent thought, some progress could possibly be made, but they have been conditioned to think that way all of their lives, and that's the only opinion they've known...

Until the haters are able to lay down the prejudices of their parents and be able to think for themselves to see people as just people, no better nor worse, then to me, the haters will remain the worst that humanity has to offer...

Still trying to formulate a rational thought on the topic of censorship for the greater good...I'll let you know when I come up with something...but I thought I'd impart a little Fuccian wisdom for you up there...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

One more thing...

I'm willing to debate anyone about anything...but as soon as someone starts spewing hate, then it just turns nasty, and the debate is essentially over for me...because where do you go from there?

 

[mrmom2]

Fuccian wisdom 8) I'll tell ya where ya go out back for a little tune up :lol: :lol: Ya know parking lot therapy :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'm willing to debate anyone about anything...but as soon as someone starts spewing hate, then it just turns nasty, and the debate is essentially over for me...because where do you go from there?

That's the thing about hating a group based on race or sexual orientation or religious belief, it can't be argued because the hatred has no basis in fact.

The topic of religious belief is even odder though. People can believe whatever they want they want to believe as far as I'm concerned. The very second that they bring those beliefs out of their church or mosque or temple and into the public sphere, those beliefs become politics though, and should be treated as such. People who think that they can put forth political opinions based on their religion and then expect to avoid criticism because they feel their religion should not be criticised have a lot to learn.

 

[PoisonPete2]

I oppose censorship. I would like to know which people are spreading hate against my Nations or my People. This hate is going to be spread anyway. It's gotten to the point where often it is not possible to express an opinion without causing the ire of some political/ social/ religious/ wacko. I recognize that there are a wide range of persons on such a board as this, with a range of sensibilities, and that part of tolerance is to respect the limitations of others tolerance. Threats, personal slur, or hate expressed against a definable group is therefore rightly limited here.