Limits of Censorship on Internet Forums

[zoobyshoe]

There's complete freedom of speech on every Internet forum. Freedom of speech means you don't get killed or jailed for what you say. I don't know of any forums that execute/jail members for expressing their thoughts.

No. Rounding up and destroying all copies of a book or periodical would constitute a violation of freedom of speech regardless of whether the publisher were jailed or executed.

Sure, but that's an extreme case. Book banning is fairly rampant in the U.S. Pornography can't be strewn about, we can't have cigarette commercials. It's not like we really have the ideal of freedom of speech that most of us imagine. There's several conflicting factors (especially when it comes to the youth).

The point is that there is not complete freedom of speech on every internet forum, as you claimed, since your definition of freedom of speech violations was limited to jailing or executing the speaker in question. There is not complete freedom of speech on PF because people can be, and often are, prevented from posting further on certain subjects and from posting from certain points of view.

I started posting here within a year after PF first came online and am well aware of what it used to be like before all these restrictions were adopted. At each point when things were incrementally tightened up, the logic was explained, and I think in Greg's position, which is that he's relying on an all volunteer staff, I would have felt a lot of pressure to do the same.
The bulk of the restrictions are about not stressing the staff out. Why should anyone of quality mentor a forum here when they have to, day after day, do verbal battle with crackpots? For two or three years that's what went on here. Mentors were exhausted. They were hapless people with a badge pinned on their chest, a quick swearing in, and the task of cleaning up a frontier town in the wild west.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, I think freedom of speech is more about getting killed/jailed for talking bad about the king than anything. That was it's purpose. To allow criticism so that policy is guided by the people.

 

[Pythagorean]

Maybe I see our discrepancy. My point about censorship is that we have censorship anyway, so we don't really have that idealized right, even in countries; it is instead a priveledge, subject to conditions and context. But nobody gets jailed for saying Obama makes a lousy king (as they might have a couple centuries ago)

 

[1MileCrash]

A forum owner could require all members to sign their post with "-the Earl of Sandwich" or ban the word "the."

Similarly, in my own house, I could ban the word sponge.

So no, I don't think that there should be any limits to what a forum owner can do with his own property, THAT is more limiting than any "freedom of speech" issue..

 

[zoobyshoe]

Maybe I see our discrepancy. My point about censorship is that we have censorship anyway, so we don't really have that idealized right, even in countries; it is instead a priveledge, subject to conditions and context. But nobody gets jailed for saying Obama makes a lousy king (as they might have a couple centuries ago)

I am not up on the law but my impression is that restrictions on freedom of speech are primarily centered around preventing people from openly, publicly inciting others to perform illegal acts, one of which, of course, is the violent overthrow of the government. I believe it is, in fact, in all other cases, a legal right.

Things like the ban on cigarette ads are legally, probably, very sketchy. I'm not sure how they got around freedom of speech with that. Bans on books with the N-word, like Huckelberry Finn, are done by individual school districts and libraries, which probably are covered by some right to censor whatever literature they deem fit.

I don't perceive PF as having an ideological, or idiosyncratically personal, agenda behind the restrictions. The oft cited "it's a private forum, Greg can do anything he wants" is true, but it's misleading characterization of what the rules and regs are about. As far as I can tell, Greg is actually an extremely laissez faire type. Back in the day, for example, "Skepticism and Debunking" used to be called "Mysticism and the Paranormal" and any wild person could post freely about their belief in ghosts, aliens, and speculative notions. They'd be argued with, but neither squelched nor banned. I don't perceive Greg to be about suppressing non-mainstream thinking and discussion. That all seemed to arise from the mentor's exhaustion and attrition rate, which took some time to become aware of.

PF was an awesome place when it was the wild west! I loved it here! Thing is, I assumed the mentors were debate freaks who enjoyed it, and I kinda missed the fact of how draining it must be to have to explain conservation of energy for the fiftieth time to yet some new yahoo who thinks it's a bogus "Law of Physics" passed by consensus. That was the announcement that came one day; that crackpot posts would be deleted because crackpots were a "resource sink", serving only to drain the mentor's energy with nothing in return. No more the showdown at high noon between Marshal Chroot and the Anti-Relativity Kid with six shooters and hand to hand fisticuffs. PF: The Frontier Era, was an amazing, colorful, insanely rich time. Unless you were a mentor, I guess.

The more recently someone has joined the less they realize how things used to be, and how PF has evolved into what it is.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think they go hand in hand. The more passionate you are about the debate, the more emotionally exhausting it probably is.

From your history, though, I see now why tolerance is so low here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think they go hand in hand. The more passionate you are about the debate, the more emotionally exhausting it probably is.

Absolutely true.

From your history, though, I see now why tolerance is so low here.

They could have gone a different route: allowing the crackpots but limiting the time a mentor could serve. To a large extent PF used to be a cracker barrel discussion: there were actually mostly geezers here, people who liked to sit around the cracker barrel and throw ideas around. There was a time when there were a lot of intelligent people who would entertain the notion, for example, that SR might be wrong, and chew it over for the hell of it to see where the idea would lead. That sort of thing. I miss that. The white knuckled rise in blood pressure you get nowadays at the slightest glance in that direction is not an improvement. (On the other hand, it is an improvement not to have to read posts by nut jobs claiming the government is suppressing secret knowledge about magnetism that would allow for free energy motors.) The worst change has been that the place is now over run with really young, emotionally and socially green people.

The mentor of GD before Evo was Kerrie, a frank believer in astrology and other mystical things. She would take people to task on the open board if they said anything derogatory about her pet beliefs. Greg didn't stop her. There was a guy for a while, too. Enigma, maybe. Anyway, he was pretty much invisible: hardly ever said a word, and GD kind of took care of itself. 3/4's of the current mentors would be dead in two weeks if they had to go back in time and deal with early PF without the use of their deletes and bans and locks. People sank or swam on their debating skills.

Things change, though. The place still attracts brighter people.

 

[Evo]

Actually Kerrie was supposed to be in charge of philosophy, but yes she'd come into GD with her astrology.

I took over from Zero, he handled GD and P&WA. Enigma was upper forums, IIRC.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Actually Kerrie was supposed to be in charge of philosophy, but yes she'd come into GD with her astrology.

I took over from Zero, he handled GD and P&WA. Enigma was upper forums, IIRC.

That was the guy: Zero. Hardly ever said a word.

Kerrie had a whole constellation of mystical beliefs and would get pretty indignant when people spoke disrespectfully about them. She was one of the original mentors and members. PF member #7 or something like that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think the ______ship on these forums is all that bad.

 

[cmb]

From your history, though, I see now why tolerance is so low here.

I concur. In fact, I would like to suggest this potted history of ZS's is added to the 'rules' thread as a 'why we have rules' note.

It's given me a new appreciation on why the moderation is as it is, and that it was an 'organic' growth of restrictions as a response to the forum's wayward discussions, rather than rules that sought to shape it.

The history of the forum is also a divergence from the OP question, so would be better off in its own thread where people can find it.