PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

So what do those two things actually mean? The word I'm hearing from current and former mods is that while the site rules are the rules, how they're interpreted in PPR is a little different than on the rest of WP and I'm working to clarify that into something that can help people keep from running afoul of rules that aren't clearly defined.

For those of you just joining us, there's been some questions lately about just what is and isn't acceptable to post here in PPR and where exactly the site rules come down on certain issues. These things have mostly been at moderator discretion in the past, but that system left a lot to be desired as opinions differed from mod to mod and the rules were enforced haphazardly and unequally. Hopefully we can hammer out a set of general guidelines that can be agreed upon by mods and members alike that make clearer where the lines will be drawn, while still allowing the sort of unfettered debate that defines PPR.

The terms "hate speech" and "offensive content" in the TOS are particularly ambiguous, and as any student of government knows, ambiguity in the law is a recipe for abuse and misunderstandings. So, I'm soliciting opinions on what exactly those terms mean to the people who post in PPR; I'm not using a poll this time and I'm not posting my suggestions first so as to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the results in any way as was suggested about my last thread concerning forum etiquette.

To further clarify, I'm not a mod and carry no authority here, I've simply volunteered to try and make the day to day running of PPR a bit smoother by reducing the barriers to entry that new members may feel from not knowing the etiquette, and making more clear where constructive debate becomes destructive baiting and trolling.

To me, hate speech means what the supreme court said it is: no threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt137349.html

So like that? Righty-dokey skip.

Here is how I would define "hate speech"

1) Repeated negative commentary insulting or stereotyping people-groups (particularly in a rigid or unkind manner), particularly non-ideological people-groups. (those based upon sexual interest, gender, race, etc) So, outright insults are problematic, but really really problematic if the poster has a history of repeatedly using insults, or using a lot of very insulting statements at a given point in time. Rigid stereotyping should also be taken in this manner. If I say that "asians seem good at math" or "asians are generally good at math", this is a stereotype, but it isn't rigid or unkind, but if I say "Jews are only good at hoarding money", then the comment is both rigid(they're only good at X) and unkind(hoarding money is considered negatively)
(Note: I say repeated because of issues of both interpreting an offense, and due to issues of even the poster misphrasing something that really could get to a legitimate point)

2) It cannot serve an argumentative purpose. So, if I start an argument titled "Whites have less genetic and/or culturally redeeming qualities" and present my points in a logical manner, then this is fine. If I say "White people suck" and then trot out a bunch of slurs/stereotypes/whatever have you, then this is hate speech.

3) It must also have negative intent. If I post the website "stuff white people like", then although this could be seen as stereotyped and negative in that manner, it is clearly intended in a humorous manner. (which may be relevant for a particular thread)

Perhaps more can be added, but this is probably a good first draft.

If you can't enter a bar because of your ethnicity, that's discrimination.
If somebody speaks against an ethnicity, that's hate speech.

Awesomely Glorious wrote

If you make a law vague enough, then it can be used as a political weapon for silencing one's opposition.