quote:

For me the boundary lies between voicing ideas or concepts that some find distasteful ad hominem attacks on an individual.

A solid principle.
The problem is, i think, that everyone has (slightly) varying ideas of where the boundry between "free-speech" and "acceptable" truly lies.
I've been brought up with the idea that "your freedom ends, where someone elses begins".

Therefore, i have very few problems with restricting my 'sexual' or 'violent' comments to the Flame Wars (not that i ever really post any anyway. As you said: too public). I don't really feel we're throwing the baby away with the bath-water in doing so.
For a difficult balance i think the mods are doing supremely well, in trying to give everyone the chance to say what's on their minds, and accomodating those who don't want to see it.

If posters want to use that freedom as an excuse to be rude, well, that's their choice and not one i agree with, myself.
If ,for instance, people feel the board wants only "artificial niceness" well they can say so and people can respond to that.
At least there's a platform where people can talk about what's on their minds, say "shit" if they feel that way, or talk about the details of their sex-lives.
But you can't restrict that. If it's to be free-speech, people have to be able to speak freely, even if that angers people.
Otherwise the WE would also deteriorate into petty-bickering etc.

It's not so much where you draw the line, it's that you stick by it.

quote:

Originally posted by Punkyfins:
[QUOTE]For me the boundary lies between voicing ideas or concepts that some find distasteful ad hominem attacks on an individual.

A solid principle.
The problem is, i think, that everyone has (slightly) varying ideas of where the boundry between "free-speech" and "acceptable" truly lies.
I've been brought up with the idea that "your freedom ends, where someone elses begins".

That implies that free speech is a zero sum equation like property rights. Now, whilst clearly two people cannot lay claim to exclusive ownership of the same plot of land, speech is an utterly different kind of animal because my right to say what I please doesn`t prevent any else from saying what they want either(Nor are they obliged to listen to me). If on the other hand you buy into the argument of the censor then not only could I restrict your freedom of speech, but that of everyone else on the board too, merely to enforce my own `comfort zone`.. and it`s that which strikes me as being fundamentally wrong, for if we all applied such logic then pretty soon we`d not be able to discuss anything at all.

Also there are laws against threatening people because that`s intimidatory and implies physical harm to be done. It is that possibility that constitutes an intrusion into another`s rights, not mere discomfort Those laws don`t prevent the threats from being made in the first instance, but they do provide a remedy in the form of a legal process and likely imprisonment for those abusing their speech rights much as the law does for tresspassers and other violators. We don`t abolish property rights simply because a small minority of us are burglars do we? Only the burglar has their freedom curtailed. Likewise we should be free to discuss any subject as long as we aren`t personally abusive.

I see.
Yes sorry, i was being unclear.
What i meant was, that we have to look at our *own* personal responsibilities. You want to try to not be intentionally hurtful, and still try and say what you think.
I didn't mean to imply that you should shut-up just because someone might not agree with you.
To clarify: if you have an opinion that someone else violently disagrees with, but that discussion doesn't deteriorate into name-calling, it'll be perfectly safe in WE.
You can discuss politics, religion, and lord knows what subjects. Subjects that aren't safe at most dinner tables, in fact.

So i don't really agree with you, that the rules abide by the most conservative standards. I don't agree that they somehow impair your freedom of speech, when you're voicing an opinion.

I agree that sex is not a 'dirty' subject. That one should be able to discuss it openly and sensibly. Flame Wars is a place for that. You might not agree with the term "Flame wars", and you might not agree with some of the conduct here.
How people behave, or conduct themselves, without the 'rules' or restrictions in WE, is their buisiness. If they want to be rude, coarse, stupid, or possibly darkly funny, it's up to them.
If they want to discuss a topic that isn't "work safe" sensibly, that shows character.

Dweller would probably flinch at some of my views on pre-marital sex, or soem of my political ideas. That doesn't mean that any discussion i start on any of those subjects automaticcaly ends up in flame wars.

If i swear, or if my posts have adult content, they probably will end up here. Here it's enrirely up to me how i choose to behave, and if i start getting hurful, i'd expect Alinda, or MrsO, or you to tell me so. Because, where my freedom of speech ends, is where i start really hurting people, or restricting their possibilities of visiting this forum.

*hugs the delightful fish*

Agreed. I`m sorry if I tend to get on my high horse at times but I am something of a civil liberties absolutist (Don`t get me started on the War on Terra.. I mean Terror) especially on free speech and censorship. I view a person`s capacity for self-expression as the key to maintaining one`s own individuality and not being swallowed up in a faceless conformist mass.

For instance, there are lot of ideas and modes of behaviour that I disapprove of, but never in a million years would I assume an entitlement to stop others from saying or doing those things because that would violate their civil liberties and I`d rather die than foreswear my principles, even for a noble objective. Democracy requires freedom of speech, even when that speech is distasteful to the majority, for without the free voicing of opinions how can there be a debate and without a debate how can we as citizens choose our leaders?

And there you are.
Some people misuse that, being hateful, hurtful, horrible or what have you.

On this board, thank heaven, i can have a perfectly sensible discussion about gay-rights, politics and relegion.
Boardies, posters and mods alike, have forgiven me my garble, my spelling-mistakes, my not-always-very-lucid english, and then some.

They've been courteous, clear, helpful and altogether lovely. If someone oversteps the mark, is stupid and rude, or possibly just a trifle thoughtless, well.... it's almost a relief isn't it?

There is a question of standards on the board though and who gets to define what they are. The board itself is the property of Neil`s publishers who let us use it as for our discussions as a courtesy, so in no sense can it be described as a democracy. We do not need to take a vote to enforce standards, that happens by default. Allow me to explain:

If people hark back to what I said about not being forced to listen to another`s speech then they should all recognize that people are all free to come and go as they will, so if this board is ever seen as needlessly prescriptive then they will leave.

We`ve had trolls around here before and doubtlessly we`ll see their like again, but once they realize that no-one is actually listening to their antics then being deprived of a reaction invariably drives them on to pastures new. Ergo, no need for the censor`s brush...