PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see why John Browning doesn't necessarily have the right to say "whatever he wants, whenever he wants." Are there some things he isn't allowed to say?

As long as he isn't spamming or anything, why can't he go on as long as he avoids overt racial slurs?

Why do you get to dictate the boundaries of "racism?"



Where is this huge conservative clique that is constantly pressing for a superior status, special privileges, and favors? Sorry, but I've never seen this. You keep pounding this concern into the ground but really, where is it? Where was the thread where "conservatives" were calling for their rights to override the rights of minorities?

I meant ok in the sense of 'legal'. And I would never say whether 'hate speech' was good or not, since I don't think 'hate speech' is clearly defined, which would make such statements vague to the point of being meaningless.

Libel, slander, and threats are illegal in the US. I don't know for sure, but I assume they are also illegal in most other countries. The WBC case hasn't been ruled on yet, but is likely to also be illegal in the US.

But, yes, I was basing my idea of what is ok or not on US laws, while one of my points against you was that you were basing your argument on Canadian laws. Given that WP is an American website in America started by an American, I think I have a bit of a better argument here, but I'll concede the point anyway.

I'll try to be more clear. I don't think we should be petitioning to ban people for having racist views. Racist views are obviously insulting to a lot of people, but the people here who hold those kinds of views are a very small minority. I don't think we have an environment where a minority of non-white people are going to be ganged up on by a majority of racist white males. This forum hasn't turned into stormfront quite yet (despite the worrying trend).

Where I'd draw the line is direct name calling, including the use of racial slurs against specific members. I don't consider it a banworthy offense to merely express views which could be construed as racist.


But then why stop at religion? Why not 'protect' members from hateful political views? What about members who are fans of Ian Rand? Are these people not also hateful? Should people who live on government assistance for their disability take offense and ask these people to be banned for their views?

That would require a definition of what subject matter constitutes racism. If I lived in Canada it would be really easy for me to self-righteously accuse people of racism for venting about poorly behaved ghetto people around them, or accuse them of racism when they go on a tirade about all the problems that a lack of border security is causing them. Under your proposed rules, people could get in trouble every time some vindictive or emotionally fragile person who shouldn't be in here gets their panties in a twist over something someone said- kind of like what happened in Canada with the Mohamed cartoons, for example.

The moderators exist to keep things civil. If someone actually needs moderator assistance and asks for it, that does not make them some sort of 'cry-baby'.

IMHO, the bar is set higher in PPR for what is a need for assistance, but that doesn't mean that PPR is unmoderated.

To answer the original question: If it was a case of overt racism, then I would expect them or someone else to report such to a moderator. Overt racism is like a direct insult, and should be treated as such. I would not expect them to feel bad or 'like a cry-baby' for reporting it either.

Racism in a more indirect manner is like an indirect insult. Such things aren't nice, but shouldn't be outright banned from PPR. For example, hyperlexian's insinuation that most religious people engage in hate speech and believe hateful things. Granted, I and probably most other religious types are annoyed by it. Granted, it could make some people uncomfortable. Granted, it could be taken as an unfounded blanket insult to a lot of people. Nevertheless, it could be taken in other ways, such as a comment on the percieved state of most, but not all, religious philosophies. It could be taken as a prescription for political action.

If she had said that all religious people are evil hatemongers, then that would have risen to the level of direct insult. But what she actually said didn't rise to that level. If this were in a thread more directly about religion, I would probably have defended religion more forcefully and directly, and if it were a person in a racial minority dealing with an indirect racial insinuation, I'd expect them to do more or less the same. The majority of WP isn't on the side of racists, anyway, so they wouldn't be alone.

The problem with banning 'hateful' ideas from PPR is this: how do we define what is 'hateful'? Whose opinion on the matter do we use? People have different ideas of what right and wrong are, and a large part of the purpose of PPR is to argue over what right and wrong even mean.

This is an American web site(though who knows where the server is) and American laws prevail. People like Hanotaux might disgust me, but they have every right to say what they think around here. Even here in Canada they would.

There are even a few religious people here that I vehemently disagree with but have privately messaged and indicated that I appreciate their presence. Is that a little odd? No. Because regardless, I know damn well that they are decent people.

The Canadian laws against hate crimes pertain to protecting average peoples right to free speech. This means that strong and loud groups(like the WBC) are hobbled from muzzling and terrifying the meek. Another good example would be patriarchal African social groups silencing women about enforced arranged marriage, female genital mutilation home-imprisonment and whatnot. Regardless, someone is going to live in fear. It shouldnt be moms and little kids.

When David Ahenakew used his greater than average social influence (He was National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and a member of the Order of Canada) to promote racism, he had his social standings revoked. This has the same effect as Americans laughing at Fred Phelps but it doesnt take decades. Meanwhile he will either destroy many lives with his bigotry. If he cant, he'll do it with law suits. Just as he has for decades.

As far as PPR being for religion, everyone has the right to participate in every thread. You just dont think its balanced because evolution gets discussed over in the science area of WP.

I'd like to add that I appreciate that PPR is given more slack than the rest of WP.

i think that the problem here is that some users do not think that hate speech in any form should be moderated on WP. however it is already written into the rules, so it is really a matter of discussing what actually consitutes hate speech. people can argue fo th importance of free speech or whatever all they like, but certain protections againt hate speech have already been written into the ToS. unless any changes or actual exceptions are written, PPR is governed by the rules of WP.

[quote="hyperlexian"]i think that the problem here is that some users do not think that hate speech in any form should be moderated on WP. however it is already written into the rules, so it is really a matter of discussing what actually consitutes hate speech. people can argue fo th importance of free speech or whatever all they like, but certain protections againt hate speech have already been written into the ToS. unless any changes or actual exceptions are written, PPR is governed by the rules of WP.[/quote

What is hate speech. Any dislike or disagreement expressed can be interpreted as hate speech. If one writes something nasty about any political party that is Hate Speech. If one casts aspersions upon any public person, that is Hate Speech. If Hate Speech were really banned, there would be not postings in this part of the forum.

ruveyn

right here in PPR. note: this thread.


since i am not a moderator, how would i suppress those ideas? sounds like you think i am great and powerful.

wrong, because the vast majority of posts do not have hate speech in them by anybody's standards.

perhaps instead of arguing against my definitions, formulate your own definition of hate speech.

i would like to see everyone's rights protected. when the minority rights are protected, so are those of the majority. no special treatment.

if you look closely, you would see that the white male american majority rarely experiences hate speech attacks on WP (presumably it happens occasionally), so the majority of people of that demographic on WP may not truly understand the importance of protecting the rights of those people who DO have hate speech spoken against them in PPR. many people of that demographic do understand, but i am definitely seeing a split.

please note that it is different to be in a minority in terms of your opinion, as opposed to being in a minority in terms of your religion or skin colour. the term refers to a pervasive societal disadvantage in addition to being fewer in number.

Nice try Hyperlexian. I guess it's kinda like pushing water uphill.

*sigh*

An uphill battle topic

I understand your analysis, HL.

The problem is you just keep repeating yourself. "hate speech" is a term that has to be defined. It isn't a valid argument to just keep insisting that it's self-evident when people keep claiming it isn't. It seems to me, by your repetition, that you're implying that it is self-evident to everyone and that anyone who claims to the contrary is a lying weasel. Otherwise, why not try to move the discussion along and clear things up?

To me it seems that the majority of conservatives *are* somewhat hateful, or at least grossly insensitive to certain people's needs. They're views towards the poor and homeless are disgusting to me. Is me saying that conservatives are hateful considered "hate speech" on my part?

By the advocacy of silencing debate opponents.