Originally posted by no1marauderdodger11 has been warned more than once. (One was mine where I warned him in a PM that Russ is considering banning him for good, and as much as we don't agree on things I didn't want to see him banned.)
The very same argument was used by Rapalla7 in September or about (there's a thread at FW with that debate between Mike and me) regarding someone who supposedly by using the word "pimpstick" was supporting the degradation of women. While in that case it was a subscriber, I see no moral difference between a subscriber and non-subcriber in the F ...[text shortened]... goes far beyond what I can comfortably support given my core beliefs and recent history at RHP.
Anyway, he seems to keep up what he was doing. Perhaps he's trying to hide it better, but he knows what he's doing.
So, if he persists... there is little option left but to ban him from the site. Will he get one more chance? I'm not sure... that is up to Russ. Rest assured, he has been warned.
Is there another solution when someone won't listen?
P
Originally posted by no1marauderno it is not. It is to ask what would be acceptable in the places you hang out away from here. Would the manager of your local pub like it if someone walked in off the street and started spouting racist viewpoints to those drinking at the bar?
This argument is just another way to say the majority should be able to toss people who spout unpleasant views
If it were allowed, the customers would get unsettled and probably find somewhere else to drink. Same applies here, only we are talking chess not beer.
Originally posted by rhbIn the place where I hang out, there's not a lot of Fundamentalist christians - if RBHill started going there it and talking like he does at RHP it would annoy most people there. Should he, therefore, get tossed? People's unpleasant views do annoy people, but I don't find it convincing in the slightest to equate really annoying (even racist) with thereforeshouldgetbanned. I find the idea that people would leave RHP because of Dodger11 very unlikely in the extreme.
no it is not. It is to ask what would be acceptable in the places you hang out away from here. Would the manager of your local pub like it if someone walked in off the street and started spouting racist viewpoints to those drinking at the bar?
If it were allowed, the customers would get unsettled and probably find somewhere else to drink. Same applies here, only we are talking chess not beer.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf he is affecting their enjoyment of their beer in this bar then yes he should get tossed... but it is up to the manager to make that decision, not the customers. The customers may discuss the situation with the manager, and this may influence his/her decision.
In the place where I hang out, there's not a lot of Fundamentalist christians - if RBHill started going there it and talking like he does at RHP it would annoy most people there. Should he, therefore, get tossed? People's unpleasant views do annoy people, but I don't find it convincing in the slightest to equate really annoying (even racist) w ...[text shortened]... d. I find the idea that people would leave RHP because of Dodger11 very unlikely in the extreme.
As I wrote earlier if I were in charge I know what I would do.
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case we do not have freedom of speech, as we may be harmed as a result of speaking out.
So freedom of speech isn’t as simple as just speaking your mind. Some protection, perhaps a law, is necessary to defend this freedom. Still keeping things as simple as we can, what happens when we have a law (or equivalent protection) that guarantees freedom of speech?
Where freedom of speech is protected, there will be some people who abuse it. It is easy to insult someone so deeply they feel they have no option but to attack you for what you said. No matter how liberal and forgiving we are, we can each be goaded to the point where any reasonable person would agree that an attack was justified.
So freedom of speech isn’t as simple as enforcing your right to speak your mind without restriction. Whatever it is that protects your freedom to speak must also establish limits on what you can say. Unlimited freedom of speech is not something we want or need.
Perhaps what we need is not ‘freedom of speech’ but ‘freedom of courteous speech’? Courtesy allows us to say things that our audience may not wish to hear, but to say them in such a way that conflict is avoided. In practice, this is what we already have in many countries. In the UK, we are free to speak on most subjects, but we must (for example) steer clear of insulting people on the basis of their skin colour. We call this ‘inciting racial hatred’, and we have a law forbidding it.
At the time of writing, the UK parliament is debating a law that would make the incitement of religious hatred a crime. This would place limits on freedom of speech, just as our racial discrimination law already does. I submit that this will be a good and worthwhile law, if it is correctly implemented, reinforcing as it does the ‘freedom of courteous speech’.
Let us take a deeper look at the use of discourteous speech: our ‘freedom to insult’, if you will! If there is a good reason for having it, then the laws we have which limit freedom of speech are surely wrong.
Assume that you and I disagree on some particular issue, and we both know it. My opinion of your opinion is not a complimentary one, and the same applies in reverse. We know this because we know that we disagree on this issue. If I give you my opinion of your opinion, I am telling you nothing you don’t already know (or couldn’t easily guess), but I am probably saying something which will upset you. And we both know this in advance. Thus it seems that the only purpose of giving you my opinion is to upset or insult you. What other purpose can there be?
Note: asking you (courteously!) to explain your belief(s) is quite different from giving you my opinion of your opinion. The former is an attempt to learn and understand; the latter is an excuse for abuse.
We can be a little more general: the purpose of discourteous speech is often – maybe always? – to upset and insult; to promote conflict. This is what the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ attempts to avoid. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that discourteous speech should not be protected under the ‘freedom of speech’ banner.
Finally, where does ‘freedom of speech’ apply? In the home? In the street (or any similar public place)? In our laws? In internet forums (such as this one) and chat-rooms? I submit that it should apply to all of these.
Do we want or need freedom of speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
Originally posted by Yozzerwell bloody said my fellow clan mate.
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case ...[text shortened]... f speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
Originally posted by YozzerThis is a very long post which says very little. To simply change the meaning of "Freedom of Speech" to "Freedom of Courteous Speech" is to pour your own pre-conceived ideas into a vessel that is already full; you want to pour out half and say it's the same thing.
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case ...[text shortened]... f speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
There are many quotes regarding the value of freedom of speech but I like this one by David Richards in a law review article at 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 45, 62:
".... each rational being is a sovereign legislator in the realm of ends. It is a contempt for human rationality for any other putative sovereign, democratic or otherwise, to decide to what communications mature people can be exposed.
The value of free expression, in this view, rests on its deep relation to self-respect arising from autonomous self-determination without which the life of the spirit is meager and slavish."
To engage in open debate with other people is to risk being offended because you might find their ideas shocking or wrong. I prefer to take such a risk rather than to have muzzles placed on myself or other people because their ideas are considered too "discourteous" for "polite" debate by even a majority. A "golden chain" placed on others is still a chain no matter how "good" the intentions. I support pure freedom of speech, not the watered down version you espouse.
Originally posted by YozzerI strongly disagree.
Do we want or need freedom of speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
The 'courteous speech' standard is far too subjective. People get offended for a wide variety of reasons, big and small. You would end up not being able to say much around someone who is easily offended.
The right to criticize (and thereby cause offense) is a very important part of free speech. Without it, you lose the right to criticize tyrannical leaders and injustice in general.
Free speech still has social repercussions. Just look at all the recs that the original post in this thread received. In politics this is even more pronounced. Just ask Howard Dean.