Well, golly, this time I have to be the one to ask.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 9:27 AM EDT |
How is this political diatribe, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, possible to post to LXer and not be a blatent violation of the now-well-traveled Terms Of Service? |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 9:31 AM EDT |
Yes, the agenda in question was one with which I disagree but that really is irrelevant. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 9:42 AM EDT |
Since the blot ... I mean Blog does not allow me to comment there, and the author believes its materials are valid for LXer, I will paste it here: ------------- Every "problem" addressed here has long since been solved. First, private individuals make the rules for their private property. Trespassing is trespassing, be it by feet, tunneling or yelling. Second, crimes require victims. If someone commits fraud, deliberately spreading lies, they are liable for the damage done. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is exactly the right thing to do if there is a fire. That's also why calling a building to report a bomb when one actually believes there is a bomb, is not a "bomb threat". Everything else in this pointless political diatribe is rationalization and self-justification for coercive government, circularly reasoned that because there is "public" property someone has to manage it. So eliminate "public" property, and the problem goes away. Caitlyn, you could really use to read some of that "free market" economics, history and law that you so quickly and completely dismiss out of hand. It would improve your attitude toward others dramatically. ------------- |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
Bob -- She is a big supporter of free speech across the entire spectrum from A to B. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 11:28 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 11:36 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 11:49 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 12:02 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2009 12:49 PM EDT |
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. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 12:50 PM EDT |
@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. |
| bigg Dec 05, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
Stanley Fish had a good blog post about this a while back: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/crying-censo... Quoting:But if none of these actions fits the definition of censorship, what does? |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 1:16 PM EDT |
@azerthoth & bigg: Excellent posts. +1 each. Stanley Fish's comments are very much correct in my view. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 1:59 PM EDT |
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. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 2:41 PM EDT |
@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. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
I finally figured it out: If we do it, it's coercion. If caitlyn does it, it's not. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 3:29 PM EDT |
Actually the way I read your posts, dinotrac, you mean precisely the opposite of what you said. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2009 3:38 PM EDT |
caitlyn: The way you read, the hat's in the cat. |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
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'. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 4:39 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
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_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 5:14 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 5:35 PM EDT |
> 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. :( |
| Kagehi Dec 05, 2009 5:40 PM EDT |
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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!