[cphastrup]

Post removed because it wasn't relevant.

regards,
the (self)censor

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps, if we have trouble adhering to the golden rule, we might use our bridge experience to use "committees" of users to determine what is appropriate for remaining in the threads. I still prefer sanctions to be sent to another site where they can exist in their ignominy as merited......

[DrTodd13]

Walddk, on Jul 28 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

As a citizen in a country that was occupied for five years during World War II, it gives me goose bumps to hear the word "censorship".

Let me quote from the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark:

Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde påny indføres.

This translates to:

Censorship and other preventive measures can never be reintroduced.

I accept that the BBO Forums are not ruled by our constitution, but I find it sad that an entire thread is deleted as a consequence of one or more insulting or defamatory posts (I don't even know what they are).

Maybe we are just paranoid.

Roland

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content. What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave. Simply principle...if you own the location/forum, you should have the completely authority to do whatever you want there. If you want to restrict all kinds of communication on your property then that is your right so let's not confuse government with private property.

Having said that, we can still say that the moderators removing this content was needed/not needed. Likewise, if you don't like their decisions then you can always leave. I suppose the moderators are trying to maximize forum usage by balancing people upset by restricted content versus people getting upset and leaving by being offended by some unrestricted content.

[whereagles]

I don't have a problem with flushing the whole thread. In fact, it helps me doing away with the whole issue. As for the technical part, the next day another thread will deal with a similar situation, so not much of a loss.

[Walddk]

DrTodd13, on Jul 28 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content. What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave.

I am not suggesting anything. As long as you don't violate any law, it's my deepest belief that you must be able to voice your opinion. If you violate a law, however, I also think that you must be held responsible - before a court of justice even if need be.

This is a belief that is so profound that nobody can take it away from me. I don't have to agree with everything people are saying (and heaven knows I don't), but it is no crime to express one's views, as long as no law is violated.

Roland

[whereagles]

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context

[luis]

whereagles, on Jul 28 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context

For me in a bridge discussion it will always be very funny.

[whereagles]

Well, glad you have such a good sense of humor. I can't always dismiss things so easily

[mike777]

As I said freedom of expression and censorship are very broad terms.
Not limited typically in any fashion to just government or legal issues.
Certainly not in this discussion where government or broken laws were not the issue.

This forum censors 99.999% of the stuff that is on the internet, thank goodness.

I just repeat my main point. Freedom of expression is censored in many ways, every day, here on forum, in usa, in Europe and in Denmark.

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I favour some form of moderation. You only have to browse the Bridge section of Yahoo message boards to see what happens when an entirely free reign is allowed.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topic...=7738405&type=r
For some reason such avenues are a magnet for pond life to flood the area with irrelevant and offensive material. That would not greatly bother me except that it gets to the point when it is difficult to find the serious bridge discussion. On balance I prefer this forum to Yahoo. The quality of the discussion is greater, and the irrelevant or offensive material is so rare that I do not even have to take the trouble to filter it. The question to be answered is: Is moderation of this forum the sole reason for the superiority of the material in this forum over that in unmoderated forums. Probably not, but I expect that the threat of it plays a large part.

But if we are to have some form of moderation, I think that the moderators themselves need to be in some way accountable to the forum members, if mutual respect is to be retained, which I think is essential or the forum will degrade.

It is not really possible for full accountability, because that could only result from the moderators permitting scrutiny of precisely that material for which censorship is proposed.

Even so I think that in general it should be possible to censor material in such a way that it is apparent that a positive effort is made to retain the genuine bridge content within the thread. The trouble with that is that it is a time-consuming process compared with a one-click removal of a thread.

No easy answers. Never are in life.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jul 28 2005, 07:50 PM, said:

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

Possibly, but I was only 6 years old when they wrote it, so they didn't ask me to rephrase it.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 28 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 28 2005, 07:50 PM, said:

By the way that quoted law seems very poorly written and almost useless.

Possibly, but I was only 6 years old when they wrote it, so they didn't ask me to rephrase it.

Roland

Not to worry we have plenty of poorly written, useless laws in the USA.
Just seems Europe has more than their fair share in the news spotlight lately.
Perhaps this breeds contempt for the law, its enforcement and pains all of us.

As an amusing side note, it was pointed out on TV that our USA Congress, which writes and passes our laws, reads almost none of the written law before they vote on it. In other words they have no idea on almost any law that they vote on what it really says or means.

On a scary side note, year after year in USA public opinion polls most of the USA Constitution is voted down. Thank goodness most of us were not around for the first vote. No Bill of Rights.

[uday]

I will restore the thread when i find a moment ( selected posts deleted/edited out)

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

No, I don't intend removal of offensive posts (nor spraycan scrawls on storefronts) to be an offence against human rights, whatever we think those are.

Posts that need to be removed will continue to be removed. Posts that are polite and on topic will not be touched. Not complicated.

[csdenmark]

DrTodd13, on Jul 28 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content.  What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave.  Simply principle...if you own the location/forum, you should have the completely authority to do whatever you want there.  If you want to restrict all kinds of communication on your property then that is your right so let's not confuse government with private property.

Having said that, we can still say that the moderators removing this content was needed/not needed.  Likewise, if you don't like their decisions then you can always leave.  I suppose the moderators are trying to maximize forum usage by balancing people upset by restricted content versus people getting upset and leaving by being offended by some unrestricted content.

Right Todd - anybody has the right to decide what and who to express on their private property.

Anybody has the right to open a media restricting it in whatever way they feel. Until expressions have been published the owner have all rights. - The point is they haven't taken advantage of their rights and therefore they have to live with all the consequences of that.

But the important matter is here and you have heard it in all the threads here on BBO-Forum where we have discussed censorship, approx. once a year: As soon material has been published you are not allowed to delete it or touch it in any way. It is not your property. Your way is a lawsuit - and that only.

[mike777]

csdenmark, on Jul 28 2005, 01:57 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jul 28 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

"Censorship" typically refers to a government arbitrating content.  What you are suggesting is that if you have a party at your house and somebody comes there and starts talking inappropriately that you should be unable to make them leave.  Simply principle...if you own the location/forum, you should have the completely authority to do whatever you want there.  If you want to restrict all kinds of communication on your property then that is your right so let's not confuse government with private property.

Having said that, we can still say that the moderators removing this content was needed/not needed.  Likewise, if you don't like their decisions then you can always leave.  I suppose the moderators are trying to maximize forum usage by balancing people upset by restricted content versus people getting upset and leaving by being offended by some unrestricted content.

Right Todd - anybody has the right to decide what and who to express on their private property.

Anybody has the right to open a media restricting it in whatever way they feel. Until expressions have been published the owner have all rights. - The point is they haven't taken advantage of their rights and therefore they have to live with all the consequences of that.

But the important matter is here and you have heard it in all the threads here on BBO-Forum where we have discussed censorship, approx. once a year: As soon material has been published you are not allowed to delete it or touch it in any way. It is not your property. Your way is a lawsuit - and that only.

This is very very silly again!

This forum is private property. That means the public does not own it. A private person does.It is not owned by the public or by you. If you publish something on private property and I own it, you bet I am going to touch it.

In any event even if it was owned by the public we can touch it good grief. Try writing your Freedom message post on the side of the White House and see how it and you get touched. Just because you write and publish your Manifesto or 95 theses on the side of a public building or forum does not mean it cannot be touched or destroyed in a legal fashion.

Speaking of Denmark, did not at least some of the Visgoths come from there and do their "freedom of expression" thang in the public forums of Rome in there own unique manner?

[sceptic]

like it or not, uday is the boss and quite honestly, I agree with one eyed jack, there is some real nasty crap posted on unregulated yahoo forums. One of the reasons I left it to be honest, it has a tendancy to drag everyone into it and lower the tone.

This is quite a decent place to post and read and I think freedom of speech is ok as long as you dont hurt anyone so carry on moderating

[whereagles]

uday, on Jul 28 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

I will restore the thread when i find a moment

I'd prefer you didn't. The least said about that thread the better.

[csdenmark]

mike777, on Jul 28 2005, 09:02 PM, said:

This forum is private property. That means the public does not own it. A private person does.It is not owned by the public or by you. If you publish something on private property and I own it, you bet I am going to touch it.

I hope you are just joking Mike. A legal case against you will be very strong.

Also please think it over - most societies today are based on the principle of intellectual rights. If your interpretation would prevail your society will be ruined.

[Free]

Did you ever read the forum rules, and what you accepted when you registered? Here it is:

Quote

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

So you agree with the fact that your posts will be decent (to summarize). By posting offensive posts, you're breaking that agreement, not the other way around. You also agree with the fact that BB has the ability to remove objectionable messages.

However, sometimes me and others don't agree with the way the posts are removed (in this case an entire thread).

[kenberg]

uday, on Jul 28 2005, 01:55 PM, said:

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

It's the trouble with the world today, everyone ducking resposibility. I suppose the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not your fault either.



They tell me I must place smiley faces in emails so people can tell when I am joking.

Ken