[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst. Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan. Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand? LOOK AT MY ASS! Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency Stealing JFK's Body Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence

Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
Source: n/a
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Jul 24, 2005
Author: Christine and Zipporah
Post Date: 2005-07-24 23:28:38 by christine
Keywords: censorship--Weigh, Debate
Views: 3510
Comments: 295

Because concerns by several members have been posted to us, both publically and privately, about the free speech "allowed" on 4um, we have decided to create three new categories. The primary hot button is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. We do not wish to censor and we also do not wish to offend (in reality, unavoidable, as what offends one may not offend another) anyone. With the availability of specific categories, each individual may eliminate an entire subject that he/she wishes not to view via his/her personal 'setup' page.

In the spirit of cooperation, and with the goal of working toward a satisfying and pleasant forum experience for everyone, we'd like to request that you avail yourselves of these specific category selections when posting your articles. The three new categories are:

Israel/Zionism

All is Vanity

Author! Author!

We hope that you all feel that this is an equitable solution.

Christine and Zipporah

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 134.

#16. To: purpleman, Rabble Rouser, rachel, rack42, range, rattler, Red Jones, Refinersfire, RickyJ, RidinShotgun, robin, robnoel, Rothbard, rustyrale, Sam Houston, scooter, siagiah, SKYDRIFTER, Soda Pop, sojourner, soren, sourcery, Starwind, Steppenwolf, Tauzero (#0)

FYI

christine  posted on  2005-07-25   11:58:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Here are my reasons for why "hate speech" merits categorization separate from other categories and what I think "hate speech" is.

There is to me (and others like me) a very clear dividing line between disent or differing opinion that ought to be tolerated and even discussed in 'polite company' versus 'hate speech' that has no redeeming merit for discussion purposes.

Our constitution protects hate speech, and I'm not advocating we change the constitution or lobby for the author to be jailed. He had and exercizes under the consititution, his right to compose and publish and broadcast his viewpoint.

But I do advocate that hate speech not be further imported via Freedom4um into my office/home, or otherwise shoved in my face. My reasons are twofold, one esthetic, the other pragmatic:

• Esthetically, "hate speech" is not edifying in that it offers no information, no critical analysis, no understanding or insights into problems, and no legitimate or lawful solutions - they're just hateful, bigoted rants.
• Pragmatically, "hate speech" is often filled with phrases and words that trip firewall detectors and can bring unwanted scrutiny to the person who happens to browse such material. This happens as discussion forums are often used as "news gateways", but companies have legal liabilities for the actions of their employees and use of their facilities, and view "hate speech" much like pornography, even if viewed accidentally.

I did inquire about fixing the bozo filter such that in the future " hate speech" articles might be hidden, as often is the advocated solution. As it is, the bozo filter does not filter articles on the "Latest" menu, the latest comments page, the headlines page, and doesn't even filter pings from bozo'd posters. Even if Neil makes the enhancements, one then becomes forced to bozo everything from a poster when only a few articles were objectionable, and even that will be circumvented should some other poster post the same or variant articles. Mandating the 'bozo' filter as the solution acts against the poster rather than the article.

In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance).

As a recent example, in The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior the group being targeted was Jews (as happens all too frquently on Freedom4um, as it did on Freedom Underground and as it does on Stormfront), but not because of what Israeli political leaders did, or not because of some newsworthy event of something happening to Jews, and not even because of what a particular Jew did. From the article:

"Wherever any significant community of Whites begins to see the world well enough to understand why we must not race-mix, the Jews know the jig is up for them."

Substitute "White" for Jew (or "male" for Jew) in that article and you'd have something closer to the truth regarding who has the control of our government.

This article would be just as wrong directed againt Women, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, Christians, Buddists, or Rednecks. It was not criticism of someone's actions or goals, it was criticism of their background - the crime was being a Jew and the loose conspiracy accusations leveled against all Jews because they're Jews.

In my opinion, any and all articles which target indiscriminatly all members of a group based on ethnicity, rather than on specific actions or status, is simple bashing and has no meritorious content and could be deleted (or proscribed) on the simple grounds of being hate speech. It isn't political speech, aside from it being the hate politics of white supremacists, and I see no reason Freedom4um *must* provide such hate-mongers with yet another outlet for their bile.

I favor free political speech, dissent against the mainstream media and political establishment, and a restoration of constitutional government and conservative values. But I am opposed to all racism and hate speech without regard to target. Hating the Jew for being a Jew is just as wrong as hating a black for being black or hating a muslim for being a muslim...etc.

As acknowledged above, while our constitution protects hate speech, our constitutional values are *not* to foster racist hatred of any given ethnic group. We recognize the right of forum owners to censor pornography from Freedom4um, but that is free speech as well. And the forum does not tolerate someone exercising their free speech rights to post pornography. And well they shouldn,'t. I'm glad they don't. But that same judgment call and ownership right exercised against pornography can be made against "hate speech" as well.

This forum to me is like a "newstand" or a gathering place to discuss events, business, politics, even religion with like or even dissimilar points of view. It started with a lot more balance than is evident at present. It has noticibly changed and increasingly is racist in content. Do I have a right to demand that such views not be published? Of course not. Do I have a right to demand the forum revert to what it was when it started, or that such views not be posted here? Of course not. Do I have a right to not have "hate speech" pushed in my face? I think so, especially in light of mechanisms that permit it to be separated, much like pornogrpahy is covered and separated from otherwise disinterested consumers.

Not suprisingly, such a move is met with accusations of trampling the constitution, knuckling under to the Jew power structure and the Illuminati and the RNC and ...whatever the kook conspiracy theory du jour happens to be.

But aside from censoring "incite to violence" if no other line is drawn anywhere to separate even the most extreme hate speech from political dissent, where will the forum lead? If nothing is deemed too racist and hateful, if everything merits discussion, what distinguishes Freedom4um from Stormfront? Why would a rational thoughtful person avoid Stormfront and yet post on Freedom4um only to see the same content?

None of us object to a course being steered toward free political dissent or even dissent in general. But there are many of us who would welcome a course correction away from the growing racism we all see. It is bad enough wading through the interforum wars, profanity and kook conspiracy theories, but the incessant racism (from some posters) puts it over the top.

We have already lost some posters who choose to not associate with a forum that frequently appears to be a platform for racist hate speech. I say 'appears' because while I know that was not the original intent, the frequency of such articles being posted and the number of comments they draw stands out (both in view and in memory) from other news worthy articles. And the number of newsworthy articles and comments diminishes as the posters who are put off by racism depart. As they depart, the remaining posters exercise their tolerance or even proclivity to post further racist hate speech, and overtime the overall appearance of the forum shifts from news and discussion to hate speech.

The solution proposed then (as the bozo filter was deemed inapporpriate) was simply a recategorization of the "hate speech" articles to " Israel/Zionism". I think that is a reasonable compromise that seems to satisfy the various viewpoints as I understand them. I would even suggest a couple further refinements:

1. Consider that (not signed up) lurkers will not have the benefit of filters, perhaps the default ought to be to hide this category, unless opted in via filter (after someone signs up). This way posters get what they want and lukers are presented with a more sanitized "first impression" of the forum. If they are then persuaded to sign up and like the hidden categories, they can eagerly filter them in, or otherwise continue to view the normal default categories they saw when they lurked with no added imposition.
2. There will undoubtedly be other articles targeting other groups besides Jews - Christians and Muslims come to mind as well as the " classics" - Blacks, Mexicans, East Indians, etc. Consequently, thinking ahead, either generalizing the category name to be something not specific to a particular group (say "Ethnic Issues", trying to remove my own value judgements from the category name, or "Rants", "Screeds", etc or "Bait'n n Bash'n" would draw attention and provoke some interest, if that were desired). Alternatively, a new category for each group when/if it is found that particular group being newly targeted. My personal style is to initially opt for the more general solution to most problems as they tend to be more trouble free and low overhead down the road. I also think one general category is simpler to manage and explain to the forum.

At present, it has not been explained what belongs in "Israel/ Zionism" and so one would assume it would be any and all articles discussing Israel/ Zionism both legitimate as well as 'hate speech', which to me seems overkill in that most of the articles posted about Israel/Zionism are not what I would consider hate speech and not in need of recategorization, but more problematic, the broad category doesn't separate the legitimate from the hate speech.

There are many articles posted about Israel or even Zionism, many of which I can understand and accept the complaints of the authors while a few I might care to dispute the historical facts. But it would seem this one category would lump together these news reports or editorials which generally are not objectionable, with the occasional "hate speech" article I don't care to see. I think that is true for others as well. The objection is not against all or most articles about Israel/Zionism, but just against the few that seem to have no purpose other than to bash Jews for being Jewish (and in the future to bash Mexicans for being Mexican, Indian's for being Indian, etc. but all of them being not- White).

So, standard news reports and editorials about Israel/Zionism could continue to be posted in the normal News, War, etc categories, so as to continue to give them maximum exposure to the entire forum and perhaps change the category name to "Bait'n n Bash'n" :) - that name alone explains a lot - " Ethnic Issues", or some such, and ostensibly the purpose of this category would be as follows:

Articles that now belong in "Bait'n n Bash'n" ["Ethnic Issues" or whatever] are those that express a biased editorial opinion (as opposed to factual research), pro or con (to be fair), predominantly generalizing:

• about an ethnic or racial group without regard to specific members actions or status, or;
• advocating the superiority or inferiority of one group versus another, or;,
• alledging a particular ethnic group is responsible for an unsubstantiated conspiracy,
  (list to be amended as needed)

As an example, the following threads (as explained for each) might then be moved to "Bait'n n Bash'n":

The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior.(editorialize about being Jewish)
THE SEVEN jEWISH BANKING FAMILIES WHO OWN THE PRIVATE 'FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING CORPORATION (unsubstantiated conspiracy by Jews)
One More Hate Letter (racial superiority or inferiority)

Starwind  posted on  2005-07-25   20:33:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance).

Hate speech, as thus defined, may have a basis in reality. The criticism is invalid only if the former (what they have said or done) has nothing to do with the latter (genetic, racial, or ethnic background.)

Correlation, of course, does not equal cause (though I think Hume had the right of cause and effect), but (to paraphrase Shockley), allows statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street.

Furthermore, the fine-grained sorting and classification required by willfully ignoring "genetic,racial, or ethnic background", has costs.

Tauzero  posted on  2005-07-26   1:19:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street.

I assume you are talking about groups. Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass).

So to me on the street a panhandler is a panhandler but a black person is a person. On this forum we are not on the street so posting facts about groups is ok although I will always try to do fact checking.

purpleman  posted on  2005-07-26   7:41:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass).

Mature, balanced and fair. Kudos. The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-07-26   10:02:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.

I think that much of the consternation from those who argue against comparing entire goups of people on any variable is misguided. Most research is accomplished in this manner by statistically comparing group means (averages).

For example, would it be incorrect or racist if I said that National Basketball Association (NBA) players have a higher verticle jump than do non-NBA players, or than do PGA Golfers, or professional tennis players, or Olympic swimmers? It is a fact that the NBA is made up of about 75-80% blacks, whereas golfers and swimmers are predominately white. So, is this group comparison "racist"? It certainly exposes and highlights the group differences.

This group comparison does not even begin to suggest that the results can be interpreted to mean that every single NBA player has a higher verticle jump than every non-NBA player. Certainly there can be more intra-group variability than inter-group variability on many measures. But that reality does not negate or invalidate observable and measurable group differences.

Most research is accomplished by measuring some variable and then comparing the values of the group means (averages). If researchers did not do this, there would be very little scientific research. Admittedly, it is okay to compare group differences.

It is also true that some variables are more difficult to measure precisely or to measure at all than are other variables. Does that mean that these variables (or issues) should be precluded from public discussion? We all know that any individual within a group may be vastly different from the group norm. So should this fact stifle discussion about possible group differences? If the answer is yes, then we need to shut down discussions of 99% of the so- called scientific research.

Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in our search for truths. These debates should not be stifled or censored in any way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free speech.

Freedom William  posted on  2005-07-26   11:41:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in our search for truths.

Come on. The issue has never been about the legitimate examples you cite and you know it. The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".

These debates should not be stifled or censored in any way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free speech.

No one has denied or asked that anyone be denied their right to post or publish. The request was to implement a way so that those of us who didn't want to read racist hate articles could "bozo" such. And everyone agreed bozo'ing or category filtering was the solution.

But that solution doesn't actually work, now does it. As an experiment, bozo the author of the top article (whatever it is) on the "latest menu" and you'll see the article itself (as posted by the bozo'd author) is still displayed. Likewise being pinged to an article in an otherwise filtered category. Likewise opening any article (unawares as to its content) in any category.

The point I made above, in view of these current limitations on the bozo/ category filtering tehcnology, was simply to narrow the categorization to actual racist hate speech. Nor more, no less.

No one's right to post or publish has been infringed or even suggested. No one complains that their articles go into filterable categories now, so why complain about one more category?

Why insist that, in absence of any other solution, those who don't care to read what we find offensive have a way to not have it pushed in front of us, at work or at home?

Why does a request for a filter (that everyone advocates be used) be fixed so it actually works keep getting recast as a demand for censorship?

Starwind  posted on  2005-07-26   12:01:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The issue has never been about the legitimate examples you cite and you know it. The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".

And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine? Or some other biased person? We are ALL biased! So rather than have a biased individual or group start categorizing and sub- categorizing content, ad nauseum, in an effort to pre-determine what types of speech may or may not offend you, along with each and every individual poster or reader of this forum, maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be.

Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere, rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system. BTW, have you donated any funds to help the owners pay the webmaster for the additional funds that will be needed to organize their website to your liking?

I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.

Freedom William  posted on  2005-07-26   12:20:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine?

Christine, and/or Zipporah, and/or whomever they choose to delegate. It's their forum and I'll accept their honest judgement.

maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be.

You keep pretending that my desire to avoid what someone else has already posted, somehow stifles their freedom to post. But then if they've already posted it, their freedom has been in no way stifled, now has it. Further, if others can set their filters (as they do now) to make it visible, their freedom to view it has in no way been stifled either, now has it.

Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere,

I believe the customary response at this point is "so bozo me if you don't want to read what I post".

rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system.

Comment was solicited. I wasn't the only one rasing the concern about how to avoid such content. I didn't propose, let alone dictate, the solution either, I'm only pointing out, upon specific request to me, what doesn't work about it.

I'm only pointing out how what everyone thinks works, in fact doesn't work, and rebuting accusations of attempts to censor when the articles would continue to be posted and viewed, as they are now.

I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.

You are mistaken.

Starwind  posted on  2005-07-26   12:35:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Now.. if you filter all categories that somehow could be offensive to you, then is that not the solution?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-07-26   12:47:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.

:P

1776  posted on  2005-07-26   12:51:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.

ROFL!

Kinda like the daily affirmation?

"Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonit, people like me!"

"I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with."

Zipporah  posted on  2005-07-26   12:56:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 134.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 134.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]