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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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 ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda

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: 3170
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 # 165.

#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  

Are you living in Canada? Germany? Israel? You use the term 'hate speech' as if it's a statute. Please, my friend, we’re doing all we can to keep that vile form of PC away from these shores - we hardly need someone like you so willing to concede it already exists. Why not simply walk past articles and posters that bother you, or don't conform to your belief system? Why do you feel the need to define other POV as ’hate’. If we’re going down that path, what I see coming from you is censorship.

If the compromise Christine and Zip put together doesn’t satisfy you, I suggest it’s you who has the problem, not us. Perhaps 4 is too free for you.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-07-25   20:51:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Recently, several members have expressed concerns about what they consider to be “hate” speech having been posted on freedom4um. Certain types of content both from posted articles and members’ replies have been criticized as offensive and worthy of censorship. The primary “hot button” is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. This subject has proven to evoke strong opinions, reactive language, and emotional invective often from otherwise rational, logical, and reasonable posters. It appears to be the most divisive of all of the issues debated on the various political forums.

From time to time at freedom4um I have observed the banishment of very few posters, after it became obvious that they were “disrupters,” whose mission was to debase and ultimately destroy the forum itself. This is quite different than censoring certain topics. I favor a forum where all topics are open for discussion and debate, as long as the language used does not personally threaten someone, does not advocate violence, or does not in some way threaten the continued existence of the forum -- and that can only be determined by the owner of the forum whose private property is at risk. Note, however, it is the language and “conduct” of the poster, not the topic that generally creates the problem. Serious debate using language and conduct that is appropriate should be welcomed and not censored. Members can post any type of evidence available to discredit another poster or to refute that poster’s “facts.” That is the recommended method for debate, rather than censoring a specific topic, even if some find it offensive.

I am in favor of free speech. Hate speech is free speech. Political speech is free speech. Inaccurate, biased, or opinionated speech is free speech. If certain types of content are to be censored or banished, then who gets to decide? Each and every one of us has biases. All opinions are biased. Even conclusions based on sound, peer-reviewed research are biased. Let’s acknowledge that. The problem arises when we start allowing one member’s bias to be posted while censoring another member’s bias. Let all posters’ words speak for themselves. If they’re obnoxious, offensive, or hateful, they will be seen for what they are. Their stated facts, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions should be open for challenge, but should not be censored.

Remember that the Mission Statement notices all members that this forum is private property. Those who do not agree with the forum’s policies, and who wish to have certain types of subject matter censored, are free to eschew this forum altogether. Alternatively, for those who want to avoid reading what they consider to be offending material, but do not wish to leave the forum, there is another option. The addition of the three new categories to the Content Filter will allow censorship on an individual rather than on a forum basis. In addition, the Bozo Filter allows for individual censorship of specific members.

With the availability of these 2 features a member would have to make a deliberate effort to be offended by subject matter or posters. As such, I view efforts to censor certain topics on a forum basis, as authoritarian in nature and an attempt to abolish free speech.

The problem with the suggestion of narrowing a category into sub-categories such as “hate speech,” “bait’n & bash’n,” etc is that this further classification system is, in-and-of-itself, a type of forum censorship. It requires someone, admittedly with biased opinions, to decide what subject matter goes into what sub-category. This methodology is burdensome and could create new types of arguments, for example, over the classification system itself. I do not see this as a viable solution. I suggest, rather than creating an onerous classification system, that each member use the Content Filter or Bozo Filter to individually censor, once you have become offended. Or, alternatively, leave the site if it becomes overly upsetting to you.

Freedom William  posted on  2005-07-25   22:01:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The *proper* response to "hate speech" is additional speech, engaging the person and winning a debate.

A loser's tactic is censorship.

Of course, there is always the "If you don't like what you're reading, don't read it."

The First Amendment very nearly requires "hate speech" to be responded to with additional speech exposing the "hate speech" for what it is and challenging its author/speaker to defend it.

Its a nicely self-policing system when used as originally intended.

mirage  posted on  2005-07-26   13:45:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#167. To: mirage (#165)

Thank you.....and very well stated.

Freedom William  posted on  2005-07-26 13:51:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The *proper* response to "hate speech" is additional speech, engaging the person and winning a debate.

A loser's tactic is censorship.

Of course, there is always the "If you don't like what you're reading, don't read it."

The First Amendment very nearly requires "hate speech" to be responded to with additional speech exposing the "hate speech" for what it is and challenging its author/speaker to defend it.

Its a nicely self-policing system when used as originally intended.

Ideally, in a perfect world, yes. But we don't live in a perfect world. Though the ideals shouldn't be abandoned and should be targeted, there are practical limits to what any of us are willing to listen too, myself included.

Neil McIver  posted on  2005-07-26 14:09:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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

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