Mecky Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 If you any enquiries please contact the Helpdesk blah blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Is it cowering to terrorism for a public forum to censor discussion about the events in Paris and subsequent discussion about causes and solutions? I suppose some would argue that such discussions could lead to divisions between non-Muslim and Muslim communities but I personal think an open discussion about concerns and issues (from both sides) is the only way to save a relationship that is on the rocks. Not speaking about the things bothering us will not make them go away and things will instead fester without gaining any perspective from the other side and therefore balance. If you ask me censorship of discussions is both cowardly and dangerous. Shame on those who do it. Debate should not be prevented but I do not think that debate will solve the current problems regarding religious extremism and the violence that it nurtures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The Freedom of Speech routine is so hypocritical. We don't have freedom of speech, haven't had for years. As for staying within the law, when the law is framed like this:- the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides: "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." It is very easy indeed to fall foul of the law, being as it is very easy for one person to claim that they are "distressed" by something someone else has said. Some may say that the Public Order Act was specifically designed to inhibit free speech, so for Cameron at el to bang on about it being a cornerstone of western democracy is off the scale hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Wasn't there a new thread about tomorrow's magazine cover? Has that just gone as well? The most important problem Europe and the western world is facing and we are not allowed to discuss it. It seems the terrorists havent cowed Charlie Hebdo but they have cowed the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 This is an unholy alliance:D I'm in total agreement. The only way to deal with these issues is debate. That debate happens at all levels. A reluctance to allow that debate is unhelpful at best. It is interesting that my views shifted a little (hopefully others too) following a debate on a now erased thread. Those arguments are now lost and no longer have the potential to bring polarised views closer together. Censorship simply sustains the division. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 09:22 ---------- The Freedom of Speech routine is so hypocritical. We don't have freedom of speech, haven't had for years. As for staying within the law, when the law is framed like this:- the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides: "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." It is very easy indeed to fall foul of the law, being as it is very easy for one person to claim that they are "distressed" by something someone else has said. Some may say that the Public Order Act was specifically designed to inhibit free speech, so for Cameron at el to bang on about it being a cornerstone of western democracy is off the scale hypocrisy. The claim of 'distress' needs to be deemed reasonable doesn't it? I don't think it it is that easy to fall foul of public order laws. Do you have some examples we can look at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Probably! What do you think about certain sites censoring debate? Healthy or unhealthy? The site doesn't have any option about censoring debates. People could post offensive, defamatory stuff that needs to be weeded out. All sites do that. If they don't they could be done for turning a blind eye to illegal stuff and drop themselves in it. As for the Charlie debate, I think it's a shame it's gone. The killings were a massive event. Of course some of the right-wing nutters have jumped on it, as well as at least one semi-apologist, but I think it would have been better to just weed out the rubbish. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 09:44 ---------- Posted from my iPhone, which helpfully corrected my spelling!!! Bad workmen and tools and all that. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 09:45 ---------- Exactly. As long as the debate is conducted in a thoughtful and civilised fashion and stays within the law, it should not be stamped upon. But how often does that happen when you have people on here saying Obama is a Muslim? ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 09:46 ---------- I'll not comment either Talking of which, you should adopt that attitude more often. Edited January 13, 2015 by LeMaquis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The site doesn't have any option about censoring debates... <snip> ... I think it's a shame it's gone... <snip>... but I think it would have been better to just weed out the rubbish... <snip> Of course it would, but how much time and effort would that have taken? It's much easier to just delete the thread, especially if you don't agree with how the thread is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 The site doesn't have any option about censoring debates. People could post offensive, defamatory stuff that needs to be weeded out. All sites do that. If they don't they could be done for turning a blind eye to illegal stuff and drop themselves in it. As for the Charlie debate, I think it's a shame it's gone. The killings were a massive event. Of course some of the right-wing nutters have jumped on it, as well as at least one semi-apologist, but I think it would have been better to just weed out the rubbish. Wasn't specifically talking about SF but you give a good example. I too think it is a shame the thread has gone. It must be a pain to moderate but ultimately it is just anything that is potential defamatory or illegal that needs to be removed as opposed to 'rubbish' which is subjective and simple censorship. The fact is that that subject provokes strong emotions and just because we might not think someones emotive response is valid doesn't mean it is not real or safe to ignore or delete. Bad workmen and tools and all that. Did I mention I have fat thumbs too? But how often does that happen when you have people on here saying Obama is a Muslim? Do posts like that need to be censored? Plenty of sites out there where you'll find such comments made and people can judge for themselves what to make of them... we don't need thought police censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Do posts like that need to be censored? Plenty of sites out there where you'll find such comments made and people can judge for themselves what to make of them... we don't need thought police censorship. I wouldn't censor posts like that as they just show the poster up to be the irrational buffoon he is. However when people start posting crap like that then it shows that the level of debate has descended into the absurd. The mods may then decide to pull the debate accordingly. What good is a debate when someone is arguing that black is white and white is in fact black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I wouldn't censor posts like that as they just show the poster up to be the irrational buffoon he is. However when people start posting crap like that then it shows that the level of debate has descended into the absurd. The mods may then decide to pull the debate accordingly. What good is a debate when someone is arguing that black is white and white is in fact black. But isn't that the point of having mods? If people know that a thread will be deleted if they post enough rubbish on it then the mods are allowing posters to effectively censor the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now