Vague and overly broad.Rum wrote:Perhaps current rules do cover this. Here is an extract from them:
"use of offensive language, images or jokes, with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member, or in the knowledge that such posts are likely to cause widespread general offense, will not be tolerated".
Hate speech surely causes widespread offence.
What do you think?
One: evaluation of a persons subjective intention essentially means that if the person posting a thing is not liked, it will be interpreted as being posted with the intention of harassing, intimidating or tormenting....if the person is liked, then it will be interpreted as humorous, jokingly meant, sarcasm, parody or metaphor.
Two: If the recipient of such a comment is not liked, then the rule will be interpreted that the comment is not intended to harass or intimidate and the recipient should get over it. A well-liked recipient will get more protection.
Three: typically, these kinds of rules are offered for the protection of certain groups. Norwegians who are offended will not receive as much protection as Jews or blacks.
Four: "in the knowledge", like "intention" is a function of subjective intent or purpose. A person might say something that people find very offensive, and not know that it is likely to cause such offense. I can tell you for sure that I was floored by the change in zeitgeist that occurred a few years ago about jokes and banter about gays on RDF. It became so bad that if you used the word "fag" or "queer" you'd be pounced on by a moderator without hesitation, and context hardly mattered.
Five: We never know what offends people, and to elevate certain groups to a level where their offense is taken seriously, but not protect others, creates a tiered system wherein the popularity of a cause is the determining factor as to whether offense is considered justified or reasonable. Would it be against that rule to call illegitimate children "bastards?" Is "illegitimate child" itself too offensive? It might be to a bastard. Should we only refer to them as "children born out of wedlock?" Are they a group that is deserving of protection?
Six: What about religions? All hate speech laws protect religions too. We forget that a lot when talking about "hate speech" as a violation. In Holland, and other countries with this foul "hate speech" laws, causing widespread offense or inciting hatred against a "religion" is against the law. Ergo, writing a book expressing scorn and contempt for religion - a la God is Not Great or the God Delusion - becomes hate speech. If we exempt religion on this board, then I would ask on what basis would we not exempt other groups? What is one aspect of ethnicity to be protected and another not?
Seven: There would be a SERIOUS chilling effect on the humorous portion of this forum. We'd all have to carefully measure our humor and make sure we're not saying something that would be found to be generally offensive, and to make sure we're not perceived as intending to offend.
Eight - Further, even if we intend to tell a joke and be funny and not to insult or incite - what difference should our subjective intent make? So, if I say, "I'm only joking, but 'all queers are AIDS carriers and nancy boys!' - does that make the thing o.k.? Because my intent was not to offend, and I had no idea people would find that offensive? Of course not. The reality is, we impute what we think a speaker is saying when he says something "offensive." If our opinion is that it's really offensive, then we conclude he must have intended to offend, or surely knew it would be offensive. If our opinion is that it's not a big deal, then whether the person actually intended to offend is immaterial. The long and short of this "intent" and "knowledge" of the speaker element is that it's a false excuse to boot out statements we don't like because they're said by someone we don't like.
Nine - and lastly - Rationalia can do what it wants and ban whatever verbiage it doesn't want. But, I respect the hell out of Rationalia for being a forum that allows people to make "offensive" comments, and shines the light of reason upon them. Rationalia has got some backbone, and compared to the old RDF forum has the sack to really be a "clear thinking oasis." Rationalia is not afraid of free expression, even expression that offends the fuck out of people. If Rationalia goes the route of protecting readers from mere words, then it becomes a bookstore or a library that won't carry Mein Kampf, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer or the Communist Manifesto because of their content.
Let free speech be absolute. Anyone who says otherwise can STFU!
