Originally posted by FMF
What's the quorum? Who qualifies as a jurist? What size majority is needed to impose a verdict on the minority that dissents? 🙂
Clearly not a decision for a majority outside the context of a trial by jury. Instead, a need for a reasoned opinion on the balance of evidence. Unless someone complains and takes RHP to court over this, then the responsibility is with the administrator.
That said, it is perfectly appropriate to draw this matter to their attention and to express a view, which may be shared or not by others on the forum.
Your balanced view is that you prefer to tolerate a level of offence and rely on the forum to respond. That is reasonable and principled.
I draw a line between being "offended" when people attack my opinions, insulted when they use personal arguments to evade a rational debate, annoyed when they make lying assertions and rely on propoganda instead of evidence - all that and more - and on the other hand, "offended" in principle when contributions pass beyond reasonable boundries and enter the terrain of incitement to hatred.
That is a judgement I suppose. But it is not one that cannot be made. In fact I suspect RHP is well clear of any risk of court action at present but failing to be robust in defence of its own principles for the forum of promoting open and honest debate.