TheBig3

I'm asking this question generally, but also as it pertains to the boards because ultimately, your opinion on the matter should be your opinion on how we moderate.

Question: Should any speech be censored?

Is there more liberty in allowing speech to run rampant or are there certain things too vicious to allow?

Is freedom of speech abused or does abusing it discredit your opinion and lead to less people entertaining you?

Should we shun or regulate? I'm standing back from this one for the first page, but I'd like to hear your opinions. I'm sure we'll agree that a large swath of speech is fine, but I'm asking about that 3% peripheral that’s always controversial.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

jackhammer

One of the main problems with any internet board is that the word is always written and not spoken therefore it can't easily be dismissed or misconstrued. It can be studied, dissected and reach a far higher audience than a conversation between a small group of people in a social gathering.

This is why forums HAVE to have moderators because of the potential of the written word. Free speech should be allowed but upon entering a forum there are rules already in place. These may well prohibit members from broaching certain subjects but they are agreed upon when the member joins the forum. Consequently, if people contravene these rules then we have to step in. If people feel that we imposing on their particular rights then maybe it's the incorrect forum for which you need in order to make your particular thoughts heard.

I think as a mod team and as unpaid volunteers, we act very professionally, politely and fairly in most matters. The success of the forum should be testament to that.

__________________

sleepy jack

I'm of the Canadian mindset that once your free speech starts threatening another person's freedom that's where you've crossed the line. For instance I'm against groups like the KKK demonstrating. I once tried to explain this in class to a teacher and in the end he ended up saying that my arguments for the same ones that the Nazis used against the Jews. It was pretty awesome; the fucking idiot.

As for internet free speech, if you want to post something hateful or just useless you can go to 4chan.

__________________

TheBig3

Hooray second page!

If you were close, I wouldn't have mentioned it. But complete other words aren't just bad spelling, its incomprehensible by every definition of that word. But this proves my point on Freedom of Speech perfectly.

See to most mods this argument, between Adele and I is stupid and useless. At every turn he's failed to answer questions and makes up for a lack of answers by trying to portray himself as someone whos outwitted us and is more clever than the rest of MusicBanter.

But most will come to the conclusion that he's a halfwit clown with no merit and no music knowledge but whos come here because he's a social outcast and needs attention. Unable to achieve it, he turns to internet villiany to give him human contact he'd otherwise be deprived of.

And how do we know all this? Because we let him speak. And like a Vice President Gore in 2000, he's tied the noose that hung his own reputation.

And this is why I'd argue against you Ethan. Hateful speech does more to isolate a group than it does to recruit. While its easy to find reports that the KKK's membership is growing, we have to question that source of those results and any agenda that source might have.

The best example I can give of speech condeeming more than supporting is President Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University where he said that we should support Intellectual discussion to the degree that the Holocaust might not have happened, and the absolute certainty that there were no homosexuals in Iran.

His support tanked. Even isolationists within the U.S. saw the man, after that point, as a legitiment threat based on a detachment from reality. While there are certainly things I find terrible and can't imagine a reason to speak aloud, I think the best way to combat them is not by regulation, taxation, or war but education. Truth has a way of winning out and I think exploration of such truth should be our foremost priority.

I mean, look at how its shown posters for their true colors, no?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

But the thing is we know the KKK is detached and a hateful organization already who are capable of inciting violence. For instance, take the SHAC 7*, under the first amendment they should have been protected (thank god they weren't) but prior to going to jail they managed to get people to perform several violent acts against other citizens. Things like that shouldn't be allowed, the KKK was kind of a bad example because they don't openly go out and say "Here's where the black people live, let's get them" but I think allowing them to operate gives a platform, lends them credibility and gives them a sense of legitimacy and even approval. No group who dedicated to a completely hateful and detrimental mindset should be allowed any of those things.








*They're basically a group of animal rights activists who set up a website listing employees of Huntington Life Sciences and then telling you how to make bombs and other weapons and how to target these employees.

__________________

TheBig3

Ethan;

I hear what you're saying but the policy is there less so to defend the guilty, but to protect the innocent. When the red scare returns and guys with guitars and left handed people are suspicious again, we're going to want to allow every faction a platform. Inhibiting speech allows us to examine everything to the fullest.

@ Toe;

Us banning people doesn't always get rid of them. Start shunning threads and people either leave or "reeducate" themselves.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

I'm for a very specific restriction on free speech (I know it would cease to be free speech once there's regulation but come on we have a "free" market economy so why not?) I don't believe the government should be allowed to go crazy with these regulations in the past I only believe they should stop your free speech once it starts becoming a threat to another person's freedom (e.g. white supremacist groups, westboro baptist church goers, pat robertson...)

__________________

ixtlan22

I suppose in general the only reason any speech should be censored is to avoid offending others. But I think many people take things to heart too easily. Why should one be offended by ignorant malicious comments when anyone who needs to go to that extreme clearly has an amazingly negative perception, and is doing more harm to their own image than whoever the comment is directed at. People should not be censored to be protected from their own stupidity.

__________________
"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God." -Bockonon-

TheBig3

I think this point is dead on.

The subjective nature of censorship creates larger, freedom-eating problems that we can't sacrafice.

I'd rather have someone claim art with throwing dung on religious iconography rather than have people not be able to speak their mind.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Janszoon

I completely agree with this statement. I mean we'd all like to see a group like the KKK be forced to shut up, but the problem is that any rule that can shut them up can very easily be used to shut any unpopular viewpoint up. I think that can quickly turn into a real problem in a society that wants to be free.

On a side note: Am I the only one who just scrolls right past adele's posts?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm