What is acceptable in TLUG?

[Thomas Milne]

On Jan 16, 2014 3:10 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.
>
> --
> Digimer

There is another issue that is important here.

As usual, because it is hateful speech about women, lots of people cry
about censorship. If William had made similarly hateful remarks about
African, gay, or disabled people, a lot fewer people would be worrying
about free speech.

Free speech does not outweigh the right of women to participate in a group
without fear of being subjected to hateful and disgusting comments like
William's. The advice from some people on here about how women just need to
grin and bear it is equally moronic.

As long as people keep standing up for the "rights" of misogynist pigs like
William, they will continue to believe that their behaviour is okay.

It is not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140116/ec59d170/attachment.html>