The phantom censor

[whereagles]

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context :lol:

[luis]

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context :lol:

For me in a bridge discussion it will always be very funny.

[whereagles]

Well, glad you have such a good sense of humor. I can't always dismiss things so easily :lol:

[mike777]

As I said freedom of expression and censorship are very broad terms.

Not limited typically in any fashion to just government or legal issues.

Certainly not in this discussion where government or broken laws were not the issue.

 

This forum censors 99.999% of the stuff that is on the internet, thank goodness.

 

I just repeat my main point. Freedom of expression is censored in many ways, every day, here on forum, in usa, in Europe and in Denmark.

 

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I favour some form of moderation. You only have to browse the Bridge section of Yahoo message boards to see what happens when an entirely free reign is allowed.

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topic...=7738405&type=r

For some reason such avenues are a magnet for pond life to flood the area with irrelevant and offensive material. That would not greatly bother me except that it gets to the point when it is difficult to find the serious bridge discussion. On balance I prefer this forum to Yahoo. The quality of the discussion is greater, and the irrelevant or offensive material is so rare that I do not even have to take the trouble to filter it. The question to be answered is: Is moderation of this forum the sole reason for the superiority of the material in this forum over that in unmoderated forums. Probably not, but I expect that the threat of it plays a large part.

 

But if we are to have some form of moderation, I think that the moderators themselves need to be in some way accountable to the forum members, if mutual respect is to be retained, which I think is essential or the forum will degrade.

 

It is not really possible for full accountability, because that could only result from the moderators permitting scrutiny of precisely that material for which censorship is proposed.

 

Even so I think that in general it should be possible to censor material in such a way that it is apparent that a positive effort is made to retain the genuine bridge content within the thread. The trouble with that is that it is a time-consuming process compared with a one-click removal of a thread.

 

No easy answers. Never are in life.

[Walddk]

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

Possibly, but I was only 6 years old when they wrote it, so they didn't ask me to rephrase it.

 

Roland

[mike777]

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

Possibly, but I was only 6 years old when they wrote it, so they didn't ask me to rephrase it.

 

Roland

Not to worry we have plenty of poorly written, useless laws in the USA.

Just seems Europe has more than their fair share in the news spotlight lately.

Perhaps this breeds contempt for the law, its enforcement and pains all of us.

 

As an amusing side note, it was pointed out on TV that our USA Congress, which writes and passes our laws, reads almost none of the written law before they vote on it. In other words they have no idea on almost any law that they vote on what it really says or means.

 

On a scary side note, year after year in USA public opinion polls most of the USA Constitution is voted down. Thank goodness most of us were not around for the first vote. No Bill of Rights.

[uday]

I will restore the thread when i find a moment ( selected posts deleted/edited out)

 

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

 

No, I don't intend removal of offensive posts (nor spraycan scrawls on storefronts) to be an offence against human rights, whatever we think those are.

 

Posts that need to be removed will continue to be removed. Posts that are polite and on topic will not be touched. Not complicated.

[csdenmark]

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content.  What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave.  Simply principle...if you own the location/forum, you should have the completely authority to do whatever you want there.  If you want to restrict all kinds of communication on your property then that is your right so let's not confuse government with private property.

 

Having said that, we can still say that the moderators removing this content was needed/not needed.  Likewise, if you don't like their decisions then you can always leave.  I suppose the moderators are trying to maximize forum usage by balancing people upset by restricted content versus people getting upset and leaving by being offended by some unrestricted content.

Right Todd - anybody has the right to decide what and who to express on their private property.

 

Anybody has the right to open a media restricting it in whatever way they feel. Until expressions have been published the owner have all rights. - The point is they haven't taken advantage of their rights and therefore they have to live with all the consequences of that.

 

But the important matter is here and you have heard it in all the threads here on BBO-Forum where we have discussed censorship, approx. once a year: As soon material has been published you are not allowed to delete it or touch it in any way. It is not your property. Your way is a lawsuit - and that only.

[mike777]

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content.  What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave.  Simply principle...if you own the location/forum, you should have the completely authority to do whatever you want there.  If you want to restrict all kinds of communication on your property then that is your right so let's not confuse government with private property.

 

Having said that, we can still say that the moderators removing this content was needed/not needed.  Likewise, if you don't like their decisions then you can always leave.  I suppose the moderators are trying to maximize forum usage by balancing people upset by restricted content versus people getting upset and leaving by being offended by some unrestricted content.

Right Todd - anybody has the right to decide what and who to express on their private property.

 

Anybody has the right to open a media restricting it in whatever way they feel. Until expressions have been published the owner have all rights. - The point is they haven't taken advantage of their rights and therefore they have to live with all the consequences of that.

 

But the important matter is here and you have heard it in all the threads here on BBO-Forum where we have discussed censorship, approx. once a year: As soon material has been published you are not allowed to delete it or touch it in any way. It is not your property. Your way is a lawsuit - and that only.

This is very very silly again!

 

This forum is private property. That means the public does not own it. A private person does.It is not owned by the public or by you. If you publish something on private property and I own it, you bet I am going to touch it.

 

In any event even if it was owned by the public we can touch it good grief. Try writing your Freedom message post on the side of the White House and see how it and you get touched. Just because you write and publish your Manifesto or 95 theses on the side of a public building or forum does not mean it cannot be touched or destroyed in a legal fashion.

 

Speaking of Denmark, did not at least some of the Visgoths come from there and do their "freedom of expression" thang in the public forums of Rome in there own unique manner?

[sceptic]

like it or not, uday is the boss and quite honestly, I agree with one eyed jack, there is some real nasty crap posted on unregulated yahoo forums. One of the reasons I left it to be honest, it has a tendancy to drag everyone into it and lower the tone.

 

This is quite a decent place to post and read and I think freedom of speech is ok as long as you dont hurt anyone so carry on moderating

[whereagles]

I will restore the thread when i find a moment

I'd prefer you didn't. The least said about that thread the better.

[csdenmark]

This forum is private property. That means the public does not own it. A private person does.It is not owned by the public or by you. If you publish something on private property and I own it, you bet I am going to touch it.

I hope you are just joking Mike. A legal case against you will be very strong.

 

Also please think it over - most societies today are based on the principle of intellectual rights. If your interpretation would prevail your society will be ruined.

[Free]

Did you ever read the forum rules, and what you accepted when you registered? Here it is:

 

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

 

So you agree with the fact that your posts will be decent (to summarize). By posting offensive posts, you're breaking that agreement, not the other way around. You also agree with the fact that BB has the ability to remove objectionable messages.

 

However, sometimes me and others don't agree with the way the posts are removed (in this case an entire thread).

[kenberg]

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

It's the trouble with the world today, everyone ducking resposibility. I suppose the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not your fault either.

 

;) :P :P :P

 

They tell me I must place smiley faces in emails so people can tell when I am joking.

 

Ken

[csdenmark]

Did you ever read the forum rules, and what you accepted when you registered?  Here it is:

 

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

 

So you agree with the fact that your posts will be decent (to summarize). By posting offensive posts, you're breaking that agreement, not the other way around. You also agree with the fact that BB has the ability to remove objectionable messages.

 

However, sometimes me and others don't agree with the way the posts are removed (in this case an entire thread).

I read this post as 'the technical ability'. - Then completely right.

 

Regarding the moral and legal issues involved your post informs of nothing. That's what this thread and the whole discussion is about.

[luke warm]

ben touched on this earlier. in that deleted thread i believe... i've been known to play flannery (if that word offends you, substitute "stayman")... when i defended this, long ago, i took a lot of heat... i wasn't called an idiot (tho it might be difficult to prove otherwise), but i was told that most intelligent, discerning bridge players abhor that evil convention

 

i didn't take offense (well, not much)... even roland, the voice of reason, had trouble containing himself at the mention of the 'f' word... however, since nobody outright *called* me stupid or degenerate, i don't see any reason at all to delete any of the things said..

 

in the case of the deleted thread, i didn't notice anyone come under personal attack... i think if there's gonna be any censorship it should be for that reason and maybe a few others (explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages ;))

[1eyedjack]

Some of *my* concerns about censorship would be addressed if there were left on the forum some trail evidencing the fact that censorship has taken place.

 

If I see a post that contains

Blah Blah Blah bridge stuff blah blah {offensive material deleted - Uday} blah blah

then it would not cause me much concern.

 

I don't know if there is much logic to it, but the deletion of a thread leaving no evidence that it ever existed seems to me to be worrying on a different level.

 

If as a forum user I can see evidence of the extent to which the powers of moderation are exercised then I may be able to form some opinion of whether those powers are being deployed excessively *to my taste* (and that judgement is a matter of personal taste). I will never have a complete picture from which to form that opinion, but part of a picture is better than none.

[luke warm]

ben usually does just that, jack... many times i've found his footprints in a post i was reading... he'll take out what seems offensive, leaving the rest

[scoob]

(explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages ;))

i never get private messages, much less anything scandalous. :P

[bearmum]

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context ;)

For me in a bridge discussion it will always be very funny.

in a F2f discussion the tone with which one says "how can you be such an idiot" varies as to whether it as meant as funny or as a dreadful insult :P

However in a forum such as this I suspect that unless you put in a :) it could be taken not in the spirit which you typed it :P

 

So may I suggest that everyone proofread their posts and if you wouldn't like to see the comment directed at you change it :P

[cherdano]

ben touched on this earlier. in that deleted thread i believe... i've been known to play flannery (if that word offends you, substitute "stayman")... when i defended this, long ago, i took a lot of heat... i wasn't called an idiot (tho it might be difficult to prove otherwise), but i was told that most intelligent, discerning bridge players abhor that evil convention

 

i didn't take offense (well, not much)... even roland, the voice of reason, had trouble containing himself at the mention of the 'f' word... however, since nobody outright *called* me stupid or degenerate, i don't see any reason at all to delete any of the things said..

 

in the case of the deleted thread, i didn't notice anyone come under personal attack... i think if there's gonna be any censorship it should be for that reason and maybe a few others (explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages B))

In fact, all this flannery-bashing makes me like to play it for some time -- it can never lose as much as you gain by your opponents thinking you are an idiot!

 

Arend

[the hog]

Well in one respect I can agree. Had I bid 4C I would have wanted any trace of that removed from prying eyes as well.

[whereagles]

LOOOOOOOOL

 

Obviously, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not going to bother explaining you the bid.

[epeeist]

I will restore the thread when i find a moment ( selected posts deleted/edited out)

 

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

 

No, I don't intend removal of offensive posts (nor spraycan scrawls on storefronts) to be an offence against human rights, whatever we think those are. 

 

Posts that need to be removed will continue to be removed.  Posts that are polite and on topic will not be touched.  Not complicated.

It's kind of uday to offer to restore the thread. Unappreciated by some, but kind.

 

Aside from mild curiosity, I don't really care that much myself.

 

People who do care might do uday the courtesy of giving thanks (as some have) for spending time to sift through a thread to restore all but the most offensive portions. Instead of, in effect, making insulting comparisons with totalitarian regimes.

 

This is a BBO bridge forum. Aside from the (entirely valid) arguments that it has its own rules, etc. which are agreed to by its members, let's also consider that it is a BRIDGE forum. There are many, many things which someone could post which would be legal in pretty much any jurisdiction but would be both offensive, and unrelated to discussion of bridge. If there were no rules and/or nothing was censored, this would quickly turn into a forum filled with posts wholly unrelated to bridge, offensive or not. Politics, Iraq, the space shuttle problems, favourite breeds of dog, whatever.

 

Personal insults -- with the possible exception of references to members of a certain Italian pair -- are unrelated to bridge. Sorry, couldn't resist that one... :lol:

 

I will note, more seriously, that personal insults may even, in some cases, constitute defamation. A very quick "Google" search suggests that, in point of fact, Denmark actually has criminal laws regarding defamation, referring to libel either by "accusations" or "offensive words or conduct". How interesting. ;) I would suggest anyone with a greater interest in the topic consult a Danish lawyer.