What is acceptable in TLUG?

[Dave Cramer]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Digimer <lists-5ZoueyuiTZiw5LPnMra/2Q at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 16/01/14 02:48 AM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>  William is Free to say what he wishes.
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If I didn't support free speech, as an operator of the list I
>>> could simply ban the parties involved and remove the messages from
>>> our archive. That is Censorship.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, moderating a list treads the fine line of censorship. We're all
>> free to make our own choices (list operators included), but if that
>> kind of "free speech" is the norm on the list then I choose to remove
>> myself.
>>
>> If strict behaviour is enforced by banning someone then only that one
>> person is inconvenienced, allowing the majority of the list members to
>> enjoy the benefits of having a list. But if one person's behaviour or
>> language drives everyone else away then nobody benefits.
>>
>> I'm not a list moderator, so I was out of line in telling William not
>> to repeat such language. For that I apologize to Scott.
>>
>> - --Bob.
>>
>
> As others have said, this is not a free speech issue. It's not even a
> censorship issue.
>
> Those concepts pertain to government issues. If someone wants to spew
> terrible things like this in a public square and people argued that he
> should be arrested, then that would be a free speech issue. If the
> government says that people can't publish ideas like this, that is
> censorship. Even then, our society has placed limits ("yell fire in a
> theatre", publishing hate speech, etc).
>
> What this is, is a decision on how the administrators of this group wishes
> to shape this group. If the administration of TLUG decides that William's
> comments are fair game, that is their choice.
>
> So I would like to ask for a formal statement from TLUG on whether
> comments like William's are considered acceptable or not.
>
> Once this policy is stated, members can decide if they wish to support
> that policy by remaining members.


My 2 cents worth....

Free speech is extended by the charter of rights of Canada, it does not
have to be extended here.
This would be considered sexual harassment in any workplace in Canada.

I don't see any reason why we should not expect (demand) our members
converse politely. If I want to find offensive material to read there is a
whole internet full of it, I see no reason to have it come into my inbox.

The position I would be in favour of is: conversation should be polite, and
what would be considered acceptable in a workplace.

Dave Cramer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140116/dc97e1de/attachment.html>