When did Free Speech disappear?

Cornucopia

Marisco wrote: »

None of us do, that's the problem.

I'm not aware of any intrinsic reason for secrecy over forum discipline (though that's the way it tends to work across various forums I am aware of).

If you think it could work better with public scrutiny, why not suggest it?

Cornucopia

benny81 wrote: »

a very true statement, freedom of speech has been lost amongst being politically correct to the extreme, because people nowdays believe it is their right to be born offended!

We've just moved progressively further away from the "dictatorship" of the majority.

We allow individual citizens to decide for themselves what an appropriate lifestyle is, and if those who adopt "minority" lifestyles want to group together for mutual support and to lobby for further freedoms, what is the issue?

EachPenny

Topcat123 wrote: »

It is not their site, it is public site.

Did you actually read the T&C's before clicking 'I agree' when you signed up on the site?

If not then you might be in for a bit of a shock. :eek:

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

andrewf75 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever participated in unmoderated debate will be grateful for the moderation on here. Its not about free speech, its simply about keeping things civilised.

One of the funniest things I've seen online was one of the groups on Reddit, who took offence at people not liking them using the N word, setting up various subgroups with other racial insults as the titles and expressing themselves very violently about women, foreigners, Jews, black people and anybody that didn't agree with them 100% of the time (including some of their own supporters). They took themselves off to another site which purports to be anti censorship, where they had essentially declared they would be in their Real Home with Their Kind of People.

Couple of days later, after having been completely torn to pieces by the 'residents', which included Nazi groups, they appeared back on Reddit. They couldn't handle being unable to moderate the other posters.



That group/members of the subs were very offended not to be able to 'express concern' about children's teaching, bathroom labelling, Islam, terrorism, etc. It's what they do, largely, as part of their Right to Freedom of Speech - which, interestingly, only seemed to apply if the others wishing to speak agreed with their opinions.

System

andrewf75 wrote: »

Anyone who has ever participated in unmoderated debate will be grateful for the moderation on here. Its not about free speech, its simply about keeping things civilised.

Martin Lewis makes it clear in the sticky that this is not a free speech forum.

There are other forums where moderation is either not so unfair/heavy-handed, or where it is simply non-existent. This is certainly not the only chat room on the net. Therefore, people who log on to this site must be doing it because they like it here.

Topcat123

EachPenny wrote: »

Did you actually read the T&C's before clicking 'I agree' when you signed up on the site?

If not then you might be in for a bit of a shock. :eek:

T&C's do not over ride the human rights convention nor do they make it moral.

I am sure those going to death camps were relieve to know it was all done within the law. :rotfl:

And of course it seems you would be OK with that as it was all done legally?

Correct?

Is that the case?

You would accept any injustice just because you have a piece of paper saying it is OK?

If that is the case the is truly appalling.

It a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

System

SamsReturn wrote: »

OP you're not on your own. I've had my wrist slapped; and both posts & threads removed by someone in Mse towers if i talked or tried to start a discussion about an everyday subject.:mad:

I was surprised to read this. I've never seen anything untoward in any of your posts, though obviously if you start a thread discussions may sometimes get a bit out of hand. Still not the fault of the thread-starter.

robpw2

your entitled to your views seven day weekend
however its how you express them

Marisco

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not aware of any intrinsic reason for secrecy over forum discipline (though that's the way it tends to work across various forums I am aware of).

If you think it could work better with public scrutiny, why not suggest it?

I believe people who have asked the admin why posts and threads have been removed never recieve a reply, so I think it would be pretty pointless suggesting anything really.

Cornucopia

Marisco wrote: »

I believe people who have asked the admin why posts and threads have been removed never recieve a reply, so I think it would be pretty pointless suggesting anything really.

I'm thinking more about whether it might be possible to change the overall policy.

Maybe naming people as they are banned is a step too far, but maybe it would help to know the kind of things that people have historically been banned for.

Although I've never been on the wrong end of forum discipline, here, I do know what it feels like to be involved in a long-term row online and then to have moderators step in and apparently treat you certainly inexplicably, if not unfairly. (This was in the infamous bear-pit of Digital Spy).

For anyone who doubts the immaturity of some of these online communities, DS relaunched at the beginning of this year, with a number of voting emoticons attached to each post. Through abuse, these have been whittled down over the months, and there is now only one left. Like MSE, it is only possible to vote positively or not at all.