 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a lot of the debates around here, people go back and forth talking about what is and is not okay to say, or at least what riles some people about what other people say and wish they wouldn't.
In reading the article linked below from the Columbia Journalism Review, I was struck by this paragraph from the decision the article's about:
“The right to free expression is the shared right to empower and uplift, and to criticize and condemn; to call to action, and to beg restraint; to debate with rancor, and to accede with reticence; to advocate offensively, and to lobby politely,” wrote Christopher Connor, chief judge of the federal court for Pennsylvania’s Middle District, in an April 28 ruling. He faulted the law for being unconstitutionally vague and over-broad, and for restricting free expression based on content: “The First Amendment does not evanesce at any gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some might find offensive.”
For your consideration and probable debate: What's considered the law of the land around here? How far does free speech go here? How far should it go?
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/silencing_act_struck_down.php?utm_source=United+States+Project&utm_campaign=8f43429117-03_30_15USP&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f9f61ca94-8f43429117-144661381
EDIT: Wasn't clear enough originally - by "law of the land" I was actually thinking of common law, defined by the practice of individuals, not FSM's policies. I'm interested in how we think we should regulate ourselves, not how the moderators should regulate us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, there are places for everything.
It's not as if the moderators here are in some way limiting free speech: we all live in an era when there's free speech SOMEWHERE if we need it.
By way of illustration, we are all freely entitled to empty our bowels, and no political set-up will ever restrict that freedom, because they'd get no votes. But we aren't free to empty our bowels ANYWHERE, to enter folks' homes and let go on the carpet. This is after all a hosted site and we are guests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, to be clear, I would never suggest that the FSM Board as a board with moderators has any requirement to allow any kind of speech, regardless of how offensive or whatever. We are indeed guests on a hosted board, so the first amendment doesn't apply here as it does in a public space.
My question is more posed to the individual users - in terms of expectations, what we consider "proper" behavior. Why it goes too far, and why we sometimes worry about it going too far....
My example is negative posts on announcement threads. I've never understood why people come onto a thread celebrating this or that release and then dismiss it, say they'd never buy it, whatever. I don't do that for releases I don't care about - I just avoid the thread. And it seems to cause a lot of fuss that can sometimes derail the celebration.
But I am not saying people who dislike a score shouldn't be able to post about that on such a thread, however much I kind of wish they just wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 4, 2015 - 3:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Well, politics and religion are no-go, per the board rules.
Interestingly, the above seems to be enforced heavily, resulting in quick lock-downs, while personal attacks are often left unedited and without consequences -- even though such behaviour is clearly prohibited in the board rules as well.
That's been my main frustration here over the last 10 years (and I'm not only talking about personal attacks against me -- although there have been plenty -- but against anyone, especially those that surface when someone takes an opposing viewpoint or opinion personally).
I disagree with you in that one shouldn't be able to post a negative or even indifferent view in an announcement thread or other kind of thread about a score. It's no more or less valuable than an "ordered!". Actually, I'd rather have a well thought-out, constructive view on WHY a certain item isn't interesting to someone, than a mere "ordered!". This very industry-friendly attitude here has been another source of frustration for me -- the recent Varese/1985 thread being a curious exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor, I didn't say one shouldn't, I said I sometimes wish people wouldn't.
Here's why I don't: my response or lack of a response to a score I don't care for doesn't often elicit anything more than "my taste is different from yours, and I don't like the way this tastes."
And I think that's just what happens many times when people do just that on announcement threads. I read precious little in the way of negative comments about announced scores that actually add anything at all to the thread. [Not that "ordered!" adds anything, except enthusiasm, but it doesn't spoil anything either.] If someone has something material to say, I'm all for it, and again, I don't want to prevent anyone from saying anything in general. But there are just too many "I don't like this kind of thing" posts that just don't do anything but foment ill will. (Not that it's the poster's fault that others don't just leave it alone.)
Sometimes it feels to me like someone crashing a birthday party and saying, "Hey I don't believe in birthdays, we shouldn't have parties!"
I do agree with you here: "Actually, I'd rather have a well thought-out, constructive view on WHY a certain item isn't interesting to someone, than a mere "ordered!"." Same with positive statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more post and I'll get out of the way.
The reason I posted the paragraph at the top is that I thought the varieties of speech listed by the judge do in fact reflect the wide variety of expressions that take place on this board.
As I've already said, this isn't about whether FSM should follow the first amendment, but whether those of us who feel strongly about the importance of free speech generally see it as important here on this board. I think that's the premise we behave under, but that there are times when we are very uncomfortable, especially with dissent.
I see a lot of instances where people tell other people they shouldn't say this or that, or that they are awful (or whatever, pick your adjective) in some way for doing so. I used my own example not because I want to control what people do, but because it's an example where I have a tendency to think, "why don't you just shut up about that?" Which is not my behavior - I don't call people out for posting something I don't like, I just disagree when I think there's something to disagree with. Because I know they have the right to say it.
FSM moderates this board very lightly it seems to me. So the onus on limits to expression seem much more based in the actual posters on the board, not the moderator. And I'm just curious how people would express the limits of their own personal interest in the range of expression listed at the top - from polite to offensive. I've edited my first post to try to make this clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say a reasonable bottom line is that we'd all like posts to be civil and polite but that the anonymity of the internet allows for curmudgeonly and occasionally downright offensive or adversarial communication here and elsewhere. It will always be so and I don't think anybody wants to take on the role of determining which such communications are okay and which are not. It is up to all of us to draw our own lines on what we want to say and what we are willing to expose ourselves to by continuing to participate in a forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a lot of people mean when they say they want free speech is that they want to be able to say what they like and not have anyone come back at them.
I think there are very few topics actually 'banned' here—perhaps just bootlegs and uncivil posting.
So I'm not sure there's much of a limit on free speech. But free speech does come with people being able to come back at what is said.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since I don't Own FSM.....I abide by their rules...If not...Get the cluck out of here. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. This is a private board and we are free to set our own rules: no religion or politics, no bootlegs, and no being horrible to each other.
There are endless places online to discuss everything—and only a few to discuss film music. This is one of them, so please keep it civil.
We try to moderate lightly because, speaking for myself, I'm lazy.
The worst we have to deal with are a few people who are by and large knowledgeable members of the community—but with hair-trigger tempers.
Not to mention a few lunatics who we had to ban who persist in trying to sneak back on...
Lukas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 5, 2015 - 1:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
johnbijl
(Member)
|
Considering that politics, democracy and freedom of speech is my day-to-day business, it's a area I've given some thought.
I applaud this place for it's freedom of speech. There are a few characters here who would use a ad hominem fallacy or a "you can't say that" or another 'motion of prohibition', but most of the times they are either ignored (because it's mostly trolling) or being called upon. It's only in a few clear violations of well formulated and logical rules that moderators intervene: rude language, politics and religion, bootlegs.
Still, I would love to see more freedom of speech on this board, or rather: an improvement of the obligations that go with the right to say what you want.
Freedom of speech is a great benefit, a force of power. But with great power comes, yes, great responsibility. It only works if it leads to informed opinions and well-structured arguments. Otherwise this board (or any other debate) would be nothing more than a soap box, a shouting contest or the inside of a toilet door.
More interaction on opinions would improve this board -- and it would improve my satisfaction of being here. You think borrowing melodies from the classics is not a offense? Go ahead and make your point! You think Mr. Baseball is Goldsmith best work of the nineties? I'd love hear your arguments. You say 'Hans Zimmer is a prick'? Fine, but please tell us how you've come to this conclusion.
Of course, this responsibility is a two way street. Even the best informed and well-structered statements can be (and most of the time will be) countered. That's were the debate(1) starts, arguments are being researched and new opinions form. It's where knowledge grows and is being created, even.
Interaction, not being ad hominem fallacies of course, improves every conversation and i would consider it the obligations of the ones exercising the freedom of speech. Either this board or a democracy (2).
(1) I hesitate to use the word 'discussion'. I'm trying to avoid semantics, but to me 'discussion' is interaction between two persons who differ in an opinion. 'Debate' has also 'spectators' who are in the proces of forming an opinion. They might even contribute the debat in the for of questions or cagey statements. On every thread there are a lot of 'readers' who are there just to learn something on film scoring or music.
(2) Actually, I've written excessively on the subject. Most of it is in Dutch, though.
(3) Yes, footnotes 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 5, 2015 - 2:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
I like how the non-film score section is now politics & religion free. It didn't use to be like that when I joined and no civil discussion ever came from it, it always ended up in personal attacks and name calling. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of places online that don't restrict discussion on those topics and I have one such place where I feel free to discuss it and replies are mostly levelheaded and open minded.
I consider the FSM board a free speech zone in regards to film music. People are free to express their opinions, as others are to challenge them or simply state a counterargument. What I do find annoying about such freedom at times, are the overly negative and cynical viewpoints. Also the people who keep shouting "we need more discussion about the music", but do anything but that. This forum is an interaction, if you don't interact and make your intentions clear, don't expect the rest to cater to your needs. Also, I don't like it when people who make the effort to start a discussion, get shot down immediately over irrelevant nitpicking or misplaced entitlement.
In that regard I will say the Offensive thread titles thread (OTT) has become a nice way to take a step away from some of the more absurd discussions and have a laugh at it all. Because at the end of the day, this is the internets. It makes for a fun pastime, but not to be taken too serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
