Forum Rule Question

[polymoog]

rule 5 states:

Do not post anything that constitutes hate speech against a race, a religion or any other group.

what other groups? can we not talk about satanists, the elites, zionists? NAMBLA is a group...

VC, please define this for us, or go into more detail.

 

[Devine]

i am curious as well

 

[VigilantCitizen]

From Wikipedia:

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

 

[polymoog]

VC, that doesnt really help, since "attack" is ambiguous and subjective.

i guess youll give someone a warning if the are getting close to the line.

 

[Lurker]

rule 5 states:

Do not post anything that constitutes hate speech against a race, a religion or any other group.

what other groups? can we not talk about satanists, the elites, zionists? NAMBLA is a group...

VC, please define this for us, or go into more detail.

It's in how you word it.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I guess we have to remember that the internet is like a country of its own and the law is snowflake liberalism.
Like I just mentioned in @Devin 's bullying 2 thread, hate speech is free speech, but I suppose obama did sell the internet overseas last year.
Pure socialism.

 

[mecca]

I guess we have to remember that the internet is like a country of its own and the law is snowflake liberalism.
Like I just mentioned in @Devin 's bullying 2 thread, hate speech is free speech, but I suppose obama did sell the internet overseas last year.
Pure socialism.

So you support racism and sexist attacks on people? It's a perfectly valid rule to keep the forum from turning into something terrible.

 

[Lazarus Long]

So you support racism and sexist attacks on people? It's a perfectly valid rule to keep the forum from turning into something terrible.

As I said in the bullying thread, hate speech isn't nice. I personally don't approve, nor do I want to offend anyone if it can be helped, but it is still free speech. And i agree that keeping a clean forum is somewhat necessary.
My point was that the internet has its own law, and just like I wouldn't walk in a Buddhist temple with my shoes on, especially in a Buddhist majority country or walk naked into a catholic church, i wont participate or condone it online, but free speech is sacred and I can't judge someone whom exercises their use of it.

 

[polymoog]

hate speech is free speech.

 

[Lurker]

While hate speech is free speech in the eyes of some governments, it is important to remember that we are in a private setting. Our only rights are those that are given by the site owner/administrator.

 

[polymoog]

lurker: you are right. this is a private forum. however, i would like the terms defined more clearly. there is another forum rule that says that the administrator has the final say, so there really cannot be any further discussion. <shrug>

 

[Lurker]

As I had previously said, it's in how you word it. Ex: You're a fucking racist - hate speech. You're acting like a racist - opinion.

 

[polymoog]

As I had previously said, it's in how you word it. Ex: You're a fucking racist - hate speech. You're acting like a racist - opinion.

i dont see the difference except for the swear word. where is the hate? tone and intent should play no role in free speech.

 

[Lurker]

i dont see the difference except for the swear word. where is the hate? tone and intent should play no role in free speech.

Remove the swear word. Do you still not see the difference?

 

[polymoog]

Remove the swear word. Do you still not see the difference?

no, unless you are insinuating libel as a reason.

 

[Lurker]

Libel, perhaps? But maybe we're just arguing semantics. I think tone and intent does matter.

 

[rainerann]

As I had previously said, it's in how you word it. Ex: You're a fucking racist - hate speech. You're acting like a racist - opinion.

The first example defines a person as a racist. Case closed.

The second suggests that the behavior resembles something that the other person would consider racist in a way that can be seen as subjective. I would consider it to be an impolite way to request that the person reword what they are saying in order to be understood without creating speculation of racism.

It would be better to say, "could you reword what you just said. I find it slightly offensive even though I don't imagine you intended it to be offensive" rather than use the word racist because the word racist can be inflammatory. Still, could not be considered hate speech if used in this context.

 

[Lurker]

The first example defines a person as a racist. Case closed.

The second suggests that the behavior resembles something that the other person would consider racist in a way that can be seen as subjective. I would consider it to be an impolite way to request that the person reword what they are saying in order to be understood without creating speculation of racism.

It would be better to say, "could you reword what you just said. I find it slightly offensive even though I don't imagine you intended it to be offensive" rather than use the word racist because the word racist can be inflammatory. Still, could not be considered hate speech if used in this context.

Could you rephrase that as you sounded logical. We have a zero tolerance policy towards logical reasoning.

 

[polymoog]

Libel, perhaps? But maybe we're just arguing semantics. I think tone and intent does matter.

i absolutely disagree. its a black and white issue. there is no gray area in this.
"hate speech" is completely and utterly subjective to an individual, and any given person can have their own view of what is and is not hate based on their sensitivity level. imagine the repercussions of tone and intent blended into free speech laws.

 

[Lurker]

i absolutely disagree. its a black and white issue. there is no gray area in this.
"hate speech" is completely and utterly subjective to an individual, and any given person can have their own view of what is and is not hate based on their sensitivity level. imagine the repercussions of tone and intent blended into free speech laws.

Who's talking about laws? I am talking about private sector.