- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Reasonable Limitations On Freedom Of Speech
|
|
|
Comments (156)
Well, golly, this time I have to be the one to ask.
3 earlier comments in the full thread.
Bob, you most certainly can comment on my blog. I don't believe I have ever rejected a comment of yours. Since I don't have a TOS like LXer.com you actually can make a much wider range of comments there than you can here.
Second, I have read free market economics, history and law. I just don't come to any of the same conclusions you do. Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You consider all law and all government regulation "coercive" and have made that clear. I consider that a fringe opinion that isn't shared by most. I don't see government as evil and I see it as having an important role to play. I also never discussed the idea of "public property."
dinotrac: If you bother to read my blog you'll see that I do post opinions of those who disagree with me, even those who make pretty obnoxious comments. I actually support the full spectrum of free speech from A to Z. What I don't support, to use Bob's choice of language, is coercion regarding what I or anyone else can or should publish.
Both: I don't decide what gets published on LXer.com. I've had submissions rejected before. Obviously Scott or Sander or one of the other editors thought this was appropriate. If you disagree you should really take it up with them. I, quite honestly, considered it borderline.
Second, I have read free market economics, history and law. I just don't come to any of the same conclusions you do. Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You consider all law and all government regulation "coercive" and have made that clear. I consider that a fringe opinion that isn't shared by most. I don't see government as evil and I see it as having an important role to play. I also never discussed the idea of "public property."
dinotrac: If you bother to read my blog you'll see that I do post opinions of those who disagree with me, even those who make pretty obnoxious comments. I actually support the full spectrum of free speech from A to Z. What I don't support, to use Bob's choice of language, is coercion regarding what I or anyone else can or should publish.
Both: I don't decide what gets published on LXer.com. I've had submissions rejected before. Obviously Scott or Sander or one of the other editors thought this was appropriate. If you disagree you should really take it up with them. I, quite honestly, considered it borderline.
Caitlyn,
Sorry, but that last statement is untrue.
Every call for a TOS violation is an attempt to coerce a limitation on publication. That it is permissible does not change its nature.
As to reading your blog, if you bothered to remember what you wrote, you would see that I quoted you (without attribution - but short enough to come under fair use) in this thread.
Sorry, but that last statement is untrue.
Every call for a TOS violation is an attempt to coerce a limitation on publication. That it is permissible does not change its nature.
As to reading your blog, if you bothered to remember what you wrote, you would see that I quoted you (without attribution - but short enough to come under fair use) in this thread.
Sigh, where to start?
> The United States Declaration of Independence only enumerated three rights as "inalienable": "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which leaves out the words "among these are", which clearly indicates that there are more. Those were merely the most obvious ones which everyone could agree on in the time available.
> Censorship, in and of itself, is not evil.
That depends on how you define evil. The best definition of evil I ever found is a simple but fundamental one: The belief that might makes right. Using that definition, censorship most definitely is evil, in and of itself. It may be a necessary evil, as many think government is, but it is still evil.
In general, while the details are largely correct (though there are several other points I could nitpick with if I wanted), the entire thrust of the article is an argument for more authority over the speech of others, which is neither necessary or desirable. People already have full authority to censor others as they see fit on their own properly. It's governments that are limited in our system, not individuals. Those limits are a very good thing, and I could make a reasonable argument that they should be strengthened, not weakened.
> The United States Declaration of Independence only enumerated three rights as "inalienable": "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which leaves out the words "among these are", which clearly indicates that there are more. Those were merely the most obvious ones which everyone could agree on in the time available.
> Censorship, in and of itself, is not evil.
That depends on how you define evil. The best definition of evil I ever found is a simple but fundamental one: The belief that might makes right. Using that definition, censorship most definitely is evil, in and of itself. It may be a necessary evil, as many think government is, but it is still evil.
In general, while the details are largely correct (though there are several other points I could nitpick with if I wanted), the entire thrust of the article is an argument for more authority over the speech of others, which is neither necessary or desirable. People already have full authority to censor others as they see fit on their own properly. It's governments that are limited in our system, not individuals. Those limits are a very good thing, and I could make a reasonable argument that they should be strengthened, not weakened.
> Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Which makes him human, like everyone else. Reasonable people keep in mind that they may be wrong, but they don't believe they are.
> You consider all law and all government regulation "coercive"
Which they are, by the definition of the term. If they weren't, you wouldn't be thrown in jail for breaking the law.
> I consider that a fringe opinion that isn't shared by most.
Historically inaccurate, though it may be true today.
> I don't see government as evil and I see it as having an important role to play.
Well, since calling a position which has historically been held by a majority of the population a "fringe opinion" is rather inflammatory, allow me to be equally so. I consider your view of government one which will eventually lead to the one shared by the worst murders in history, Stalin and Mao. History will record which of us was correct.
Which makes him human, like everyone else. Reasonable people keep in mind that they may be wrong, but they don't believe they are.
> You consider all law and all government regulation "coercive"
Which they are, by the definition of the term. If they weren't, you wouldn't be thrown in jail for breaking the law.
> I consider that a fringe opinion that isn't shared by most.
Historically inaccurate, though it may be true today.
> I don't see government as evil and I see it as having an important role to play.
Well, since calling a position which has historically been held by a majority of the population a "fringe opinion" is rather inflammatory, allow me to be equally so. I consider your view of government one which will eventually lead to the one shared by the worst murders in history, Stalin and Mao. History will record which of us was correct.
I fail to see where "I do not desire to publish your works" be it a publishing house or forum host is censorship at all. It in no way limits the persons ability to voice or publish their opinions/works. As I said before everyone, everyone has the rights to say what they will, it however is not mandated that anyone assist or provide a forum for such acts, or even listen to you at all. It can not be defined as censorship unless that person is constrained from voicing their views/opinions/works in any way or any form. That prohibition is censorship, no lesser test is viable, no lesser case is pertinent.
@dinotrac: My statements are both completely true and consistent in my opinion. You disagree and that's fine. Having rules enforces is not coercion. If you don't accept the TOS you really shouldn't be posting on this site at all. The editors and owner or LXer.com have the right to set their own rules and to follow them even if you don't like them. That isn't coercion. If anything, you and others are trying to pressure the owner/editors to drop or alter their published rules to suit your own agenda.
@jdixon: I thought you were better than that. Resorting to red baiting? C'mon! My view of government is classically liberal. I also obviously disagree that I am calling for more authority by government to limit free speech. That article, in reference to U.S law, hasn't been published yet but it is coming. From a Canadian or European (EU) or Australian perspective I am actually going to be calling for no change at all. What I will be advocating is emulating something the rest of the free world is doing but we in the U.S. are not doing.
What I am doing in this post is stating the long established and largely agreed upon limitations which already exist to demonstrate that free speech is not and never has been an absolute right. It is and always has been limited by government. Unlike you I do feel that this is both necessary and beneficial.
I'm glad that we agree that the rights of individuals to control what goes on in private space on their own property is a good thing. Most of those who have disagreed with my last three blog posts have argued that their right to post their comments trumps my property rights.
I also agree that limits on government's ability to limit speech are a good thing. I think the definition of when that is appropriate written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hr. is excellent. I would never advocate going beyond the clear and present danger principle. If I did then your slippery slope argument would be a correct one.
@jdixon: I thought you were better than that. Resorting to red baiting? C'mon! My view of government is classically liberal. I also obviously disagree that I am calling for more authority by government to limit free speech. That article, in reference to U.S law, hasn't been published yet but it is coming. From a Canadian or European (EU) or Australian perspective I am actually going to be calling for no change at all. What I will be advocating is emulating something the rest of the free world is doing but we in the U.S. are not doing.
What I am doing in this post is stating the long established and largely agreed upon limitations which already exist to demonstrate that free speech is not and never has been an absolute right. It is and always has been limited by government. Unlike you I do feel that this is both necessary and beneficial.
I'm glad that we agree that the rights of individuals to control what goes on in private space on their own property is a good thing. Most of those who have disagreed with my last three blog posts have argued that their right to post their comments trumps my property rights.
I also agree that limits on government's ability to limit speech are a good thing. I think the definition of when that is appropriate written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hr. is excellent. I would never advocate going beyond the clear and present danger principle. If I did then your slippery slope argument would be a correct one.
Stanley Fish had a good blog post about this a while back:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/crying-censo...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/crying-censo...
Quoting:But if none of these actions fits the definition of censorship, what does?
It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.
@azerthoth & bigg: Excellent posts. +1 each. Stanley Fish's comments are very much correct in my view.
bigg, traditionally you are correct that censorship is only defined as such when it is the government or a government empowered agency doing it. However, caitlyn seemed to be using a broader definition in her article.
@jdixon: Actually, I'm not using a broader definition. I am responding to those who claim that comment moderation or refusal to publish is censorship.
I finally figured it out:
If we do it, it's coercion. If caitlyn does it, it's not.
If we do it, it's coercion. If caitlyn does it, it's not.
Actually the way I read your posts, dinotrac, you mean precisely the opposite of what you said.
caitlyn:
The way you read, the hat's in the cat.
The way you read, the hat's in the cat.
I begin to wonder if dino's account hasn't been compromised. There was a time when you could count on logic and reasoning from him. Didn't matter if you agreed or not, if you didn't agree you would simply be bludgeoned with chains of logic until you submitted or ran away. He knew as well as anyone, yelling "I object" and then offering no grounds for it, you might as well have not said anything.
*edit, you might take this as ad-hominem, instead you should be taking it as 'justify your position'.
*edit, you might take this as ad-hominem, instead you should be taking it as 'justify your position'.
> If we do it, it's coercion.
> If caitlyn does it, it's not.
Just like a TOS violation.
> Bob, you most certainly can comment on my blog.
No, I cannot. As in I am incapable of having my typed words show up, due to your comment policies. Which is fine, since it's your blog and your policies, and I, unlike you, respect private property.
Seriously, Caitlyn, seriously. Let me ask you this: What, in your opinion, is coercion?
If laws are not coercion, then why do I risk someone with a badge breaking down my door and killing me if I happen to partake of one or two particular herbs, for no other reason than the existence of a particular law?
I note that every example of "censorship" above is a law declaring what may not be discussed. And you just wrote that "What I don't support, to use Bob's choice of language, is coercion regarding what I or anyone else can or should publish."
Which leads me to conclude that you consider the force of law to be coercive, and that you don't like laws that say what you don't like them to say.
What is it that backs up your "rules", being as far as I can tell those laws that you like, other than the threat of overwhelming violence for those who don't agree with you? Do you really think that laws persuade?
> My view of government is classically liberal.
No, your position is Progressive, not "classically liberal". Classically Liberal means Jeffersonian and Mesian, which your advocating of government force most certainly is not. Your support of government monopoly grants is not. Your dismissal of free markets is not "Classically Liberal" at all.
The Progressives coopted the term "Liberal", which is why "Classically Liberal" had to be coined.
> I also agree that limits on government's ability to limit speech are a good thing.
The standing limit:
Congress shall make NO LAW.
As far as I know, that law has never been repealed. Weaseled around, yes, but not repealed.
> Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
No, Cailtyn. You're wrong because you're a raging hypocrite. The posting of this article to LXer, after all your holier than thou preaching on the LXer TOS as it applies to everyone but you, is a simple demonstration of it.
Go ahead and decry my opposition to statute law and coercive government, in those things where you think statute law and coercive government are just fine.
You can even decry my opposition to all statute law and coercive government because I'm not a hypocrite.
Just like a TOS violation.
> Bob, you most certainly can comment on my blog.
No, I cannot. As in I am incapable of having my typed words show up, due to your comment policies. Which is fine, since it's your blog and your policies, and I, unlike you, respect private property.
Seriously, Caitlyn, seriously. Let me ask you this: What, in your opinion, is coercion?
If laws are not coercion, then why do I risk someone with a badge breaking down my door and killing me if I happen to partake of one or two particular herbs, for no other reason than the existence of a particular law?
I note that every example of "censorship" above is a law declaring what may not be discussed. And you just wrote that "What I don't support, to use Bob's choice of language, is coercion regarding what I or anyone else can or should publish."
Which leads me to conclude that you consider the force of law to be coercive, and that you don't like laws that say what you don't like them to say.
What is it that backs up your "rules", being as far as I can tell those laws that you like, other than the threat of overwhelming violence for those who don't agree with you? Do you really think that laws persuade?
> My view of government is classically liberal.
No, your position is Progressive, not "classically liberal". Classically Liberal means Jeffersonian and Mesian, which your advocating of government force most certainly is not. Your support of government monopoly grants is not. Your dismissal of free markets is not "Classically Liberal" at all.
The Progressives coopted the term "Liberal", which is why "Classically Liberal" had to be coined.
> I also agree that limits on government's ability to limit speech are a good thing.
The standing limit:
Congress shall make NO LAW.
As far as I know, that law has never been repealed. Weaseled around, yes, but not repealed.
> Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
No, Cailtyn. You're wrong because you're a raging hypocrite. The posting of this article to LXer, after all your holier than thou preaching on the LXer TOS as it applies to everyone but you, is a simple demonstration of it.
Go ahead and decry my opposition to statute law and coercive government, in those things where you think statute law and coercive government are just fine.
You can even decry my opposition to all statute law and coercive government because I'm not a hypocrite.
What I am going to decry (have done already, actually) is your constant desire to ignore the TOS and preach politics.
Bob, it seems anyone who doesn't see everything as black or white or takes nuanced positions is a hypocrite in your book. You also love personal attacks and name calling when you do it and complain vociferously if someone else who disagrees with you does it.
Enough already!
Bob, it seems anyone who doesn't see everything as black or white or takes nuanced positions is a hypocrite in your book. You also love personal attacks and name calling when you do it and complain vociferously if someone else who disagrees with you does it.
Enough already!
Caitlyn,
Seriously. Seriously. What is your definition of coercion? What is YOUR criteria by which you label one law as coercion and another as "Having rules enforces is not coercion"?
Do you have any principles, or is everything gray, pragmatic, an opinion of the moment?
> You also love personal attacks and name calling when you do it and complain vociferously if someone else who disagrees with you does it. I don't complain. I oppose.
Complaining would be something like declaring anything I don't like to be a TOS violation. I don't do that.
You do.
By the criteria you established and defined for everyone else long since, your article is a direct violation of the LXer TOS.
> Enough already!
Hypocrite. You wrote it, you posted it. You don't get to just call of discussion when it doesn't go your way.
Excuse me while I laugh at you.
Seriously. Seriously. What is your definition of coercion? What is YOUR criteria by which you label one law as coercion and another as "Having rules enforces is not coercion"?
Do you have any principles, or is everything gray, pragmatic, an opinion of the moment?
> You also love personal attacks and name calling when you do it and complain vociferously if someone else who disagrees with you does it. I don't complain. I oppose.
Complaining would be something like declaring anything I don't like to be a TOS violation. I don't do that.
You do.
By the criteria you established and defined for everyone else long since, your article is a direct violation of the LXer TOS.
> Enough already!
Hypocrite. You wrote it, you posted it. You don't get to just call of discussion when it doesn't go your way.
Excuse me while I laugh at you.
> jdixon: I thought you were better than that. Resorting to red baiting?
Whether you like it or not caitlyn, you views on government have far more in common with them than the founders of our country and far more than you seem to think. And it's a fair equivalent to calling positions held by most Americans throughout history a "fringe opinion".
> My view of government is classically liberal.
Absolutely untrue caitlyn. Dino's view of government is classically liberal, not yours. I'm sure you think yours is, but it's simply not the case.
> I am responding to those who claim that comment moderation or refusal to publish is censorship.
OK. By the classical definition it's not.
> Weaseled around, yes, but not repealed.
Weaseled around so thoroughly that it might as well not exist come election season. :(
Whether you like it or not caitlyn, you views on government have far more in common with them than the founders of our country and far more than you seem to think. And it's a fair equivalent to calling positions held by most Americans throughout history a "fringe opinion".
> My view of government is classically liberal.
Absolutely untrue caitlyn. Dino's view of government is classically liberal, not yours. I'm sure you think yours is, but it's simply not the case.
> I am responding to those who claim that comment moderation or refusal to publish is censorship.
OK. By the classical definition it's not.
> Weaseled around, yes, but not repealed.
Weaseled around so thoroughly that it might as well not exist come election season. :(
There are a lot of things I would love, in a perfect world to see "coerced". The problem is, I recognize, unlike a few too many web sites (and I am no necessarily talking about LXer), that the common enemy of bad ideas, failed premises, and false concepts, is not shoring up ignorance behind a wall, and telling people they can't post commentary of specific subjects, it is **information**. What people in Europe seem to miss in the "holocaust denial", and other such things, is that the groups presenting these ideas are not going to stop thinking them if you ban talking about them in public. All you do is build a wall between them and any possibility that some of them might learn that its a lie. The same can be seen on nearly every right wing, fundamentalist, website in the US, nearly all of which subject their postings to "review", which results in the immediate deletion of anything that contradicts their views. They then generally proceed to whine and complain about the majority of Liberal sites not being nice to them, when they show up, by ***actually*** letting them post, but calling them lying idiots when they do. They then patting each other on the back over having such a nice, walled in, protected, and safe, castle to hide in, where they can look around and go, "See, if they thought they would right they would post here too!"
You can't protect factual ideas by driving the lunatics underground. You can't protect people from real danger by telling them, "its dangerous, don't do it", but then preventing them ever touching the stove. Ignorance is the enemy, and that includes *both* ignorance of the facts, and ignorance of just who screwed up the thinking of some people is, who advocate ignorance, false facts, historical revisionism, and/or lies. Such things burn away in the light of *real* information. They flourish in the sewers of their own echo chambers.
As such, while there are thousands of stupid and dangerous ideas I personally would love to see banished from the face of the earth, I recognize, unlike some people, that the solution to the problem is teaching people how to work out which is which, undermining the efforts of those spreading politically motivated BS, and replacing false information with real facts. None of this is possible via simply telling people, "You are not allowed to say that!" That not only doesn't solve the underlying problem of them not *knowing* any better, or knowing how to know any better, it just amplifies the problem among people that are now both wrong **and** have been suddenly given a tangible cause to fight for - the spread of their ignorance as far and wide as possible, to undermine the people telling them to shut up.
Yes, there are reasonable limits one can place on speech. Telling people they can't deny something, however evil it was, isn't one of them. Most of the TOS I have seen range from stupid, like denying the use of words that might actually offends 2% of the people posting, to far more extreme things. In the end, all they do is send the people that don't like it some place else, where there is no control over the facts, no means to rebut their misinformation, and possibly no awareness that the people involve in trying to present their side are even being stabbed in the back some place else. None of this is productive in "solving" problems. It simply amplifies them.
You can't protect factual ideas by driving the lunatics underground. You can't protect people from real danger by telling them, "its dangerous, don't do it", but then preventing them ever touching the stove. Ignorance is the enemy, and that includes *both* ignorance of the facts, and ignorance of just who screwed up the thinking of some people is, who advocate ignorance, false facts, historical revisionism, and/or lies. Such things burn away in the light of *real* information. They flourish in the sewers of their own echo chambers.
As such, while there are thousands of stupid and dangerous ideas I personally would love to see banished from the face of the earth, I recognize, unlike some people, that the solution to the problem is teaching people how to work out which is which, undermining the efforts of those spreading politically motivated BS, and replacing false information with real facts. None of this is possible via simply telling people, "You are not allowed to say that!" That not only doesn't solve the underlying problem of them not *knowing* any better, or knowing how to know any better, it just amplifies the problem among people that are now both wrong **and** have been suddenly given a tangible cause to fight for - the spread of their ignorance as far and wide as possible, to undermine the people telling them to shut up.
Yes, there are reasonable limits one can place on speech. Telling people they can't deny something, however evil it was, isn't one of them. Most of the TOS I have seen range from stupid, like denying the use of words that might actually offends 2% of the people posting, to far more extreme things. In the end, all they do is send the people that don't like it some place else, where there is no control over the facts, no means to rebut their misinformation, and possibly no awareness that the people involve in trying to present their side are even being stabbed in the back some place else. None of this is productive in "solving" problems. It simply amplifies them.
Got to love the irony of that.
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
Caitlyn,
I refuse to mince words any more.
That's all.
You are free to call that anything you want. I call it honesty.
I refuse to mince words any more.
That's all.
You are free to call that anything you want. I call it honesty.
Obsession perhaps Bob? (runs for cover at 100mph!)
I never said you weren't honest, Bob. I said you refuse to adhere to the rules set down by the owners and editors of this website. You've made it clear in your last post that you have no intention of following the TOS. If I were in their position I would ban you, not for your beliefs or your positions, but simply for not obeying the TOS.
Hey kids!!
Cold weather is here again. That means it's bonfire season!! Go grab a friend and bring all the books you can carry!
Cold weather is here again. That means it's bonfire season!! Go grab a friend and bring all the books you can carry!
dinotrac: Who is advocating book burning? Who is advocating suppressing ideas? Not me. If you bothered to read the article rather than just go on the attack over and over again you'd know that my principle point is that a private website is private property. Nobody can dictate what someone can or cannot do on their private property. You don't have the right to dictate what LXer.com will publish. Neither does Bob. Neither do I. That is essentially what both you and Bob are demanding. It's your way or the highway. Well... that would be true if this was your website. It's not.
I do not interpret a conversation about government in relation to the concept of free speech as automatically being a TOS violation. If it was about this or that political party or particular politician(s) being right or wrong in their stance on it, then it would have been. From what I read it was not about the politics of free speech but the governments function in relation to it. This is another gray area in relation to the TOS that I wrestle with constantly. Talking about 'government' in relation to anything without getting 'political' is hard, all it takes is one word or sentence for a conversation to dive bomb into a TOS violation.
Free speech may or may not be seen as relevant to LXer but having our TOS mentioned and referenced in both articles made it at the minimum of interest in my eyes.
Bob, Because of our TOS I think your questions are better sent through PM than in a thread. So you know, I have always had problems being able to type text on blogger. Sometimes I couldn type anything, sometimes I could but it wouldn't show when I hit send or sometimes even be able to create a post on my blog. And it didn't matter which one of my computers I was on. It pissed me off to no end and is one of the main reasons I moved my personal blog to Wordpress. Since doing so I have not had any of those problems. I don't know what it is about blogger but I got tired of fighting it.
Free speech may or may not be seen as relevant to LXer but having our TOS mentioned and referenced in both articles made it at the minimum of interest in my eyes.
Bob, Because of our TOS I think your questions are better sent through PM than in a thread. So you know, I have always had problems being able to type text on blogger. Sometimes I couldn type anything, sometimes I could but it wouldn't show when I hit send or sometimes even be able to create a post on my blog. And it didn't matter which one of my computers I was on. It pissed me off to no end and is one of the main reasons I moved my personal blog to Wordpress. Since doing so I have not had any of those problems. I don't know what it is about blogger but I got tired of fighting it.
caitlyn -
If you bothered with honest and reasonable discussion instead of constructing straw men and misrepresenting the positions of others, I might take you seriously. As it is, your refusal to conduct yourself seriously draws a non-serious response.
Surely you can appreciate the nature of cause and effect in that regard.
If you bothered with honest and reasonable discussion instead of constructing straw men and misrepresenting the positions of others, I might take you seriously. As it is, your refusal to conduct yourself seriously draws a non-serious response.
Surely you can appreciate the nature of cause and effect in that regard.
More unjustified name calling and mischaracterizing my writing. It's sad that you seem capable of nothing more.
caitlyn --
Your reaction would be unbelievable from somebody else, but I have come to expect lies and whining from you.
So...to be clear:
Caitlyn:
Hmmm, a little history is in order
Dean:
Caitlyn:
You don't like my definition of free speech, which happens to be, well, free speech. I can live with that. Both of my constitutional law professors were ok with it back when I was in law school, and I suspect they know the topic better than you do.
No reasonable person, myself included, believes that a private site like lxer has to let anybody say anything they want at anytime. I have made that case repeatedly, even though you prefer to ignore that fact and simply repeat your lies about my position.
What I have said is this:
That's no shock to anybody who has actually studied the jurisprudence of free speech, or even anybody who has ever been to a gathering place where people are free to talk to each other.
There are boors who monopolize conversations. We wish they would just shut up. At the first opportunity, we pry ourselves away and drift over to another, more interesting, more open conversation. Yes, we have to endure a little unpleasantness, but -- it's got to be better than somebody grabbing a bullhorn and shouting "OK, folks, here are the rules of the evening -- if you can't say something I like, just shut up."
Your reaction would be unbelievable from somebody else, but I have come to expect lies and whining from you.
So...to be clear:
Caitlyn:
Quoting: You don't have the right to dictate what LXer.com will publish. Neither does Bob. Neither do I. That is essentially what both you and Bob are demanding.
Hmmm, a little history is in order
Dean:
Quoting: if Lxer editors decide that certain topics or certain manners of speech are not to be allowed on the site, they are indeed restricting freedom of speech. They are within their rights to do so, but it doesn't change the nature of the act ...
Yeah, a private site has every right to do that. ,
Caitlyn:
Quoting: In a word, nonsense. Nobody has a right to dictate what someone should or should not publish.
You don't like my definition of free speech, which happens to be, well, free speech. I can live with that. Both of my constitutional law professors were ok with it back when I was in law school, and I suspect they know the topic better than you do.
No reasonable person, myself included, believes that a private site like lxer has to let anybody say anything they want at anytime. I have made that case repeatedly, even though you prefer to ignore that fact and simply repeat your lies about my position.
What I have said is this:
Quoting: Restrictions tend to have a chilling effect on the range of thought and conversation. If you repress speech long enough, people will begin repressing themselves and some ideas/expressions never come to light.
That's no shock to anybody who has actually studied the jurisprudence of free speech, or even anybody who has ever been to a gathering place where people are free to talk to each other.
There are boors who monopolize conversations. We wish they would just shut up. At the first opportunity, we pry ourselves away and drift over to another, more interesting, more open conversation. Yes, we have to endure a little unpleasantness, but -- it's got to be better than somebody grabbing a bullhorn and shouting "OK, folks, here are the rules of the evening -- if you can't say something I like, just shut up."
I dont remember asking you to 'shut up' dino, I asked you to talk more. Still haven't taken a crack at it either I see, or is making attacks on someones intellect a proactive stance?
azer --
About like your refusal to open your eyes and read. What would you like me to talk about that I haven't already said and repeated?
You can speak, but you can't make somebody listen. That's the position I am in with Caitlyn. She ignores what I write and pretends that I have said the opposite. What would you have me do?
About like your refusal to open your eyes and read. What would you like me to talk about that I haven't already said and repeated?
You can speak, but you can't make somebody listen. That's the position I am in with Caitlyn. She ignores what I write and pretends that I have said the opposite. What would you have me do?
I used to enjoy the discussions here at LXer.
Though optimism still causes me to drop by here several times each day, I rarely participate, because it seems like every thread that I'm interested in takes the same ugly turns and ends up exactly the same way.
Have any of you other regulars noticed that?
Though optimism still causes me to drop by here several times each day, I rarely participate, because it seems like every thread that I'm interested in takes the same ugly turns and ends up exactly the same way.
Have any of you other regulars noticed that?
> I think your questions are better sent through PM than in a thread.
Understood. Thank you.
Caitlyn, > If I were in their position I would ban you
They are also in a position to note that you always "start it". This thread is no exception. Just look, please.
Understood. Thank you.
Caitlyn, > If I were in their position I would ban you
They are also in a position to note that you always "start it". This thread is no exception. Just look, please.
@dino in this case, and in these 2 thread, a bunch of one liners and in your one post of any length intentionally misrepresenting comments. Yes, I think continuing to ask you to justify your stance is valid. You two seem to be really working at misunderstanding each other, because in several places you have both said the exact same thing, just phrased differently. Caitlyns position is clear and even in your quotes of her are self consistent. Editorial control is not censorship, nor can it ever be construed that way. It is simply editorial control. Censorship prevents that person from expressing there views anywhere in any form. The right to free speech is a given, there is no mandate however that any one else ever has to supply you with a place for you to do so.
> Editorial control is not censorship, nor can it ever be construed that way.
If that were the entirety of the article, there would have been no disagreement on anyone's part that I know of.
Once sentence doesn't make much of an article, sadly. Benjamin Franklin and Seinfeld made it work, though.
If that were the entirety of the article, there would have been no disagreement on anyone's part that I know of.
Once sentence doesn't make much of an article, sadly. Benjamin Franklin and Seinfeld made it work, though.
> If that were the entirety of the article, there would have been no disagreement on anyone's part that I know of.
That is one of the two major points of the article boiled down to a single line.
That is one of the two major points of the article boiled down to a single line.
azertoth...
What in the name of all that is reasonable did I misrepresent? It is caitlyn who consistently misrepresents -- no, lies about -- my position.
I'll admit that I get tired of repeating all that for the benefit of people who refuse to be honest, but that's just a human foible.
What in the name of all that is reasonable did I misrepresent? It is caitlyn who consistently misrepresents -- no, lies about -- my position.
I'll admit that I get tired of repeating all that for the benefit of people who refuse to be honest, but that's just a human foible.
...and I get tired of repeatedly being accused of lying when I have been 100% honest and consistent in what I have written.
Just can't stop, can you, caitlyn?
With proof before your eyes, you choose to look the other way.
Of course.
Why would you change tack now?
Dino,
I can see your point of view clearly and I think it is intellectually defensible. I also think it is wrong.
Let me summarize it:
1) Lxer has the right to publish what it sees fit. Thus the TOS is *legally* fine. 2) You believe this site would be better served if the political aspect of the TOS was either removed or interpreted much more liberally than is the case at present.
The reason why I think you are wrong:
As everyone who frequents this forum knows there has been much dissension lately and several threads have been locked as a result. I know this since I have been involved in some of the slanging matches. This is what ComputerBob is referring to and I agree with him.
The origin of this unproductive conflict is quite clearly strong differences in political viewpoint. Some of us are on the left and some of us are on the right (a number are apolitical). Anyone who reads this forum knows immediately who the rightwingers and leftwingers are.
Given that it appears self evident that a civil discussion involving politics is impossible on Lxer. That is the whole point of the TOS. If I thought that civil and productive discussion was posible I would agree with you. But it very clearly is not.
I also think that fault attaches to both sides in this. There is a significant amount of "goading" of the other side and a distinct lack of respect. That is unfortunate and really a reflection of the fractious nature of US politics at present.
However since this is a linux site and not a politics site the TOS makes perfect sense given the lack of constructive conversations on politics.
The "chilling effect on free speech" is not really relevant in that situation. The real chilling effect is on conversation because of strongly partisan political viewpoints.
Why anyone would want to continue such an unpoductive exchange really baffles me.
If it were to continue, I personally would no longer visit this forum. I am glad that it won't.
I can see your point of view clearly and I think it is intellectually defensible. I also think it is wrong.
Let me summarize it:
1) Lxer has the right to publish what it sees fit. Thus the TOS is *legally* fine. 2) You believe this site would be better served if the political aspect of the TOS was either removed or interpreted much more liberally than is the case at present.
The reason why I think you are wrong:
As everyone who frequents this forum knows there has been much dissension lately and several threads have been locked as a result. I know this since I have been involved in some of the slanging matches. This is what ComputerBob is referring to and I agree with him.
The origin of this unproductive conflict is quite clearly strong differences in political viewpoint. Some of us are on the left and some of us are on the right (a number are apolitical). Anyone who reads this forum knows immediately who the rightwingers and leftwingers are.
Given that it appears self evident that a civil discussion involving politics is impossible on Lxer. That is the whole point of the TOS. If I thought that civil and productive discussion was posible I would agree with you. But it very clearly is not.
I also think that fault attaches to both sides in this. There is a significant amount of "goading" of the other side and a distinct lack of respect. That is unfortunate and really a reflection of the fractious nature of US politics at present.
However since this is a linux site and not a politics site the TOS makes perfect sense given the lack of constructive conversations on politics.
The "chilling effect on free speech" is not really relevant in that situation. The real chilling effect is on conversation because of strongly partisan political viewpoints.
Why anyone would want to continue such an unpoductive exchange really baffles me.
If it were to continue, I personally would no longer visit this forum. I am glad that it won't.
When will LXer develop kill files?
83 earlier comments in the full thread.
Does not.
Quoting:Pamila Jones isn't her name?
Oh, you mean using initials, vs using the entire name. I see.
No, I mean that Pamela Jones isn't her name.
Quoting:And to think, Maureen O'Gara expended so much energy to track her down.
Why do you think she didn't succeed? :-) PJ is *very* careful. And it wasn't just MoG. SCO also tried (and failed) to find her because SCO thought that PJ was in fact a team of IBM lawyers.
@Sander:
Ssssshhhhhhhh!
Whatever I can do to send them into another tizzy.
Ssssshhhhhhhh!
Whatever I can do to send them into another tizzy.
From lxer.com "Terms of Service" or what you call "Terms of Service" when in actuality the "terms" stated wouldn't hold in a court of law.
"Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site."
This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted.
Also, how can you expect people not to discuss political matters? Politics is where the operating system started (in an effort lead by Richard Stallman to liberate computer users from the popularizing proprietary software), even Linus Torvalds himself made a political move when he started calling the software by a name with the sole purpose to create a pragmatic point of view and to attempt to devalue the freedoms he and others enjoy.
"Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site."
This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted.
Also, how can you expect people not to discuss political matters? Politics is where the operating system started (in an effort lead by Richard Stallman to liberate computer users from the popularizing proprietary software), even Linus Torvalds himself made a political move when he started calling the software by a name with the sole purpose to create a pragmatic point of view and to attempt to devalue the freedoms he and others enjoy.
Let me state this for the umpteenth time: LXer.com is private property. The TOS would stand up in court because legal freedom of speech protections do NOT apply to private property. Privacy rights would have supremacy in this case. Please show me even one legal precedent for your claim that the TOS would not stand up in court. I seriously doubt you can.
Demanding to post about politics (or whatever) is not an exercise in free speech. It's an exercise in dictatorship. It's making demands that private media publish what they do not want to publish. It impinges on the free speech of the publisher. Your free speech, OTOH, is not being impinged on because you are free to setup your own website or post somewhere else all the politics you want and all the criticism of LXer.com you want.
Your viewpoint shows a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the legal protections surrounding it.
Demanding to post about politics (or whatever) is not an exercise in free speech. It's an exercise in dictatorship. It's making demands that private media publish what they do not want to publish. It impinges on the free speech of the publisher. Your free speech, OTOH, is not being impinged on because you are free to setup your own website or post somewhere else all the politics you want and all the criticism of LXer.com you want.
Your viewpoint shows a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the legal protections surrounding it.
Quoting:This is taking away my freedom of speech
Are you going to sue Fox because they don't let you use profain language on TV? Are you going to sue Digg because they don't let you post ads? Are you going to sue Youtube because they don't let you submit porn? Are you going to sue Blogger if you are not allowed to reveal and discuss secret CIA documents?
If so, keep us informed, such a thing would be interesting and would sure be fun to watch.
If you want freedom of speech, go to your local village, stand on a crate and go ahead.
Awesome (& caitlyn) :
The argument about free speech WRT a private place like a web site is not centered around law and legally protected rights. A private place doesn't have to let you in, let alone let you say what you please.
The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit.
The argument about free speech WRT a private place like a web site is not centered around law and legally protected rights. A private place doesn't have to let you in, let alone let you say what you please.
The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit.
Awesome,
> This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted.
You are welcome to write anything you want. The LXer owners can delete anything they want, including anything you write, on THEIR system.
Freedom of Speech is personal. There is no obligation on anyone else that they must listen.
> This is taking away my freedom of speech, something I do not take for granted.
You are welcome to write anything you want. The LXer owners can delete anything they want, including anything you write, on THEIR system.
Freedom of Speech is personal. There is no obligation on anyone else that they must listen.
> The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit.
Yep. Which is another discussion entirely, and one that hasn't yet taken place. To be fair, Scott and company have a very fine line to walk, and much of the time the calls they have to make are going to be extremely subjective. In general, they've done a good job.
Yep. Which is another discussion entirely, and one that hasn't yet taken place. To be fair, Scott and company have a very fine line to walk, and much of the time the calls they have to make are going to be extremely subjective. In general, they've done a good job.
jdixon -
>and one that hasn't yet taken place.
That's not true. The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic.
>and one that hasn't yet taken place.
That's not true. The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic.
> The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic.
Some of them, yes. But doesn't that demonstrate what I just said? The discussion hasn't been allowed to take place. And it's not really LXer's moderation that's been stopping it.
Some of them, yes. But doesn't that demonstrate what I just said? The discussion hasn't been allowed to take place. And it's not really LXer's moderation that's been stopping it.
>And it's not really LXer's moderation that's been stopping it.
I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it isn't. It can be very difficult to advance a discussion when people put beans in their ears.
I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it isn't. It can be very difficult to advance a discussion when people put beans in their ears.
It seems we are finally coming to some sort of consensus:
Thank you! You've just said what I've been saying in a different way.
This is an issue I didn't cover in either free speech article but it certainly is a valid point. Too much control or too little control can make a website or blog unappealing. I also agree with jdixon that it is most definitely a delicate balance and I also agree that Scott, Sander and everyone at LXer.com have generally done a good job.
WRT my blog I've watched it's Technorati ranking climb sharply and I've also noticed the number of comments is way up. That tells me I must be close to achieving that balance as well. Do I make some poor judgment calls now and again? Sure! Everyone does. I'm human and I make mistakes. Right now, despite defending my right to delete comments, I honestly don't moderate out many. It has to be pretty bad for me to reject it.
@Bob_Robertson wrote:
Amazing. We stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other and we find common ground. Again, same point, different wording, and obviously a point of agreement.
@hkwint: Yep. What Awesome is suggesting amounts to appropriating that milk crate or, in American vernacular, that soap box.
Quoting:The argument about free speech WRT a private place like a web site is not centered around law and legally protected rights. A private place doesn't have to let you in, let alone let you say what you please.
Thank you! You've just said what I've been saying in a different way.
Quoting:The argument is about the degree of freedom (or tolerance, if you prefer) that should be granted to ensure a lively and engaging place -- the kind that people will find interesting enough to visit.
This is an issue I didn't cover in either free speech article but it certainly is a valid point. Too much control or too little control can make a website or blog unappealing. I also agree with jdixon that it is most definitely a delicate balance and I also agree that Scott, Sander and everyone at LXer.com have generally done a good job.
WRT my blog I've watched it's Technorati ranking climb sharply and I've also noticed the number of comments is way up. That tells me I must be close to achieving that balance as well. Do I make some poor judgment calls now and again? Sure! Everyone does. I'm human and I make mistakes. Right now, despite defending my right to delete comments, I honestly don't moderate out many. It has to be pretty bad for me to reject it.
@Bob_Robertson wrote:
Quoting:You are welcome to write anything you want. The LXer owners can delete anything they want, including anything you write, on THEIR system.
Freedom of Speech is personal. There is no obligation on anyone else that they must listen.
Amazing. We stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other and we find common ground. Again, same point, different wording, and obviously a point of agreement.
@hkwint: Yep. What Awesome is suggesting amounts to appropriating that milk crate or, in American vernacular, that soap box.
dino,
I always suspected you were a Java hater, now I have unequivocal proof:
YBT
PS A sure TOS that's going to shut down this thread. How devious. Someone get Scott's attention, please.
I always suspected you were a Java hater, now I have unequivocal proof:
Quoting:[...] It can be very difficult to advance a discussion when people put beans in their ears.and so snide to boot. Go about with your refined Tea ways, I chose to ignore you.
YBT
PS A sure TOS that's going to shut down this thread. How devious. Someone get Scott's attention, please.
Txt -
You're right. I don't see how anybody does anything in that dogforsaken language.
You're right. I don't see how anybody does anything in that dogforsaken language.
> Amazing. We stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other and we find common ground.
So in one way you respect private property. A good start.
Dino, > The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic.
Sadly, it's only recently that the threads were closed instead of deleted, so much of what might have been is gone.
So in one way you respect private property. A good start.
Dino, > The shut down threads included substantial discussion on this topic.
Sadly, it's only recently that the threads were closed instead of deleted, so much of what might have been is gone.
Quoting:Yep. Which is another discussion entirely, and one that hasn't yet taken place.
Some of it, between the editors (non-public). At one point more discussion than the "contestants" could bear (you're here pretty long, I think you know what I mean). After that, most of it dealing with 'technical' issues about forum layout etc.
Quoting:or, in American vernacular, that soap box.
Thanks Caitlyn, that was the vernacular I was looking for!
Quoting:That tells me I must be close to achieving that balance as well.
Which is amazing, given your blog is partly about one of the most difficult issues in history.
@Bob, I'm not sure the deleted threads are really gone. I'm not the one dealing with that issue though. Nonetheless, what I know is 'deleted' articles are not gone, they're still on the servers.
Deleted threads do disappear, closed ones do not. Closed threads should still be in your 'watched' threads but are not able to be added too any longer.
Hk,
> @Bob, I'm not sure the deleted threads are really gone. I'm not the one dealing with that issue though. Nonetheless, what I know is 'deleted' articles are not gone, they're still on the servers.
Well, they're invisible at least from the user point of view. I had one discussion bookmarked, and when it was "deleted" it would not come up and vanished from the watched and recent lists.
The more recent "closed" threads remain on the watched and recent lists, as well as directly accessable via the same direct links.
That's just a technical point.
Well, they're invisible at least from the user point of view. I had one discussion bookmarked, and when it was "deleted" it would not come up and vanished from the watched and recent lists.
The more recent "closed" threads remain on the watched and recent lists, as well as directly accessable via the same direct links.
That's just a technical point.
@Bob: There was a time when closed threads would appear to be deleted due to a forum bug. That bug has been corrected a few weeks ago. Check the threads again. If it was closed instead of deleted then it should be visible again.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
She is a big supporter of free speech across the entire spectrum from A to B.