Free speech on the forums

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

Thanks for bringing this thread back to topic.

I would also like to note that I too received a warning on the Events thread announcing the Simplicity Party meeting, in spite of these relevant facts:
- I am a member of the Simplicity Party (at least as of now).
- My only post on the thread had relevance to the inaugural meeting, as it was a serious suggestion for a motto in response to a jesting suggestion for a motto from a non-member.

Perhaps the list of people warned for violation of the guidelines was put together in haste, and my name was mistakenly added. I'm fairly certain that the list of people warned was intended to have some kind of balance between the loose coalitions that have developed of late, to avoid accusations of unfairness. However, an accidental arrest is an arrest nonetheless. :-) It's hard not to feel a little hurt when something that clearly SHOULD fall within protected free speech is slapped on the wrist.

I also note, in relation to the question of free speech on the forums, that the grid being down often (as it is at the moment I write this) is another reason why the fora are an important part of the way our CDS government works. In any case, the fora clearly fall under the "any media and regardless of frontiers" protection for free speech in Article 19 of the UDHR.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Yes, Dimsum, I thought that the issuance of the warning against you was particulary unfair. I admit my own exposure to sanction with regard to three of my posts. However, your post was entirely appropriate and proper. I suggest that you appeal -- or join my appeal -- so that the SC can have the opportunity to define the issue more fully, penalizing me while acquitting you, to define both ranges of outcome.

Unless, of course, the S.C. decides that thread hijacking is only punished at the point of diversion, rather than the following responses (which are arguably topical as responses). In such case, neither you nor I were properly in the bite of the line -- and it was all Ash and Michel.

I hope that you stay in the Simplicity Party. We need your moral courage in the coming fight against creeping Kritocracy and usurpation by those who C.A.R.E,

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

And I who naively thought that a wave of civility was blowing over the land.... :)

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Well, I admit that civility is a virtue, but it cannot keep house with Truth. I will call it as I see it, rather than shrink from the fear that someone might think poorly of my insight. Oppression feeds on such silence.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Free speech....

Post by michelmanen »

And how, may I ask, are grass-roots mobilisation and participation in legitimate elections an usurpation of anything? Or are CARE's activities not covered by Gxeremio's freedom of speech rules?

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”