Freedom of speech question>

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.

Postby Araceli » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:36 am

Ad hominem attacks work in reverse. Go ask Kinetic about that sometime. His bitching is what brought me over here to look.
Araceli
 

Postby stuart » Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:45 pm

"Freedom of Speech does have it 's limitations"

No it does not.


it sure as hell does. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected under any circumstances. Inciteful speech, a much more sticky area, is not universally protected.
These points are quite moot in this case though. No one is being denied their right to free speech by being ejected from what a court would recognize as a private forum. The operators of this here e-realestate can limit access as they see fit. It's their sandbox and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If you don't like it, make yer own. I believe some already have and the result is quite tasty.

Lets get less academic and a little more pragmatic here though. We are talking about a speciifc case and anyone looking at it can tell there is a problem. While trey has pointed out, and correctly so, that WSPR has the occasional kernal of a legitimate topic in the BODY of some of his messages, any one can reasonably judge that there is a lot of speech in those posts that would not be protected in a public space, let alone a private one. On top of that, and what really pisses me off, is the fouling of the board by posting 8 new threads, or bumping 8 old threads we had all been happy to see trickle into oblivion, that clearly have the same hatefull intent. It should be clear to anyone the flavor of the message. Why not have that dialogue happen in one thread? The poster is clearly abusing the board in the name of some spiteful agenda. I think this idea is uncontroversial.

I would not boot someone like DeFacto, but I would certainly give the users the tools they need to step around it if so desired. I would however, if it were my board, boot this other jackass. No person or entity need provide a venue for their own abuse.
User avatar
stuart
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Postby precipitate » Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:51 pm

> The poster is clearly abusing the board in the name of some spiteful
> agenda.

But I'm not sure that, for me, it's the content of what he's saying but
rather the sheer volume of it. I agree that it's disruptive for disruption's
sake. I agree that it's probably inappropriate behavior according to the
community guidelines which will, soon, help to benchmark what's ok and
what isn't. But I'm uncomfortable with codifying "You can't say negative
stuff about specific people" into a rule. Negative opinions are not
necessarily without merit.
precipitate
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

Postby stuart » Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:39 pm

I would agree with that as well. I would not find it aesthetically appealing. I really think we are talking about a much more pointed case here. If I had provided a board for a community and a member of that board decided to fling heaps of unsupported vitriol at me in more than half a dozen threads and then ducked out only to return a few weeeks later to bump up the threads I would not hesitate to boot their ass. Anyone who cried censorship would get a hearty 'go fuck yourself' from me as well. I find that different than making some blurry rule about nothing negative being passable.
User avatar
stuart
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Postby precipitate » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:04 pm

> I find that different than making some blurry rule about nothing
> negative being passable.

Yeah. I think we agree on this. And in your example, I think there's no
question. I'm not sure there's no question about the *content* of WSPR's
threads (but I've mostly avoided them, so I could have my head up my
ass about this).

I hate rules, though. I prefer to exist in communities where some shared
basic standards inform behavior, rather than communities that must live
by the letter of some law to survive. I fucking hate the fact that we're
sitting here on our hands while fucktards run rampant. My solution was to
leave. I think that was a great one, for me if not for the community here.
And now, if I'm to return and enjoy being around, I'm looking at having
to have rules. It's just disappointing and I don't want to write more rules
than are absolutely required simply out of fear.
precipitate
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

The flogging of the inert equine continues.

Postby DangerMouse » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:24 pm

Right to Freedom of Speech - Yep
Right to Absolute Freedom of Speech - Nope
Right to Freedom of Religion - Yep
Right to Drive - Nope (Privilage regulated by the state.)
Right to Vote - Yep
Right to Remain Silent - Yep

Freedom of speech does have its limitations. Basic knowledge of your constitutional rights would teach you this. Knowledge of the words Slander and Libel are helpful in this matter.

The truth of the matter is simply this. No matter who you are or where you are, you have the freedom of speech. The difference is, depending on where you are, the consequences of your actions/words will dictate what happens to you next.

You're free to say/do whatever you want, as long as you accpet the consequences for your actions based on your current location. You don't even have to agree with them, however your actions will dicate the reactions of others around you.

The e-playa, BRC, and BMORG? Well, that falls into private domain. A benevolant dictatorship with lax rules if you will. It is available to the public, however it is not in the hands of the public.

Do I like trolls? No.
Would I like to see them banned? Yep.

But it's not my say-so. I've spent too many years running message boards, forums, servers, to simply think that I can't bring myself to ruin another person's experience. For me, it's a matter of who's experience do I protect? The 800 people who don't cause a problem, or the 1 person who ticks off 700 of the 800 others?

If I could simply ignore users and not have to see their posts. I'd be perfectly happy.

I've found that its really best if you think of your rights as a privilage. You tend to not take them for granted, and will usually behave in a more
responsible manner... Usually.
User avatar
DangerMouse
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: Bacon Lube - The 8th Food Group

Postby nipples » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:48 pm

Maybe the Capitalist Pigs were ejected only because they were under the skin of powers-that-be more evidentlly.

I was subjected to the Capitalist Pigs..... 1999.
Quite a surprize.
Glad to see them gone.

Though surely the argument COULD have been made that you had only to walk a different street to avoid hearing them, or simply do not be affected by them (Dalai Lama, anyone?) just as closely as saying you may scroll (rather than stroll) past abuse on a BBS.

Is tolerance a science project with theorists veiwing
the SCREAMING MONKEYS in my head?
User avatar
nipples
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:22 am

Postby Chai Guy » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:55 pm

Nipples???

Where the hell have you been? We need you back here in the worst way!
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

.

Postby nipples » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:35 pm

Thank you, Mr. Chai!
I have been behaving badly in private.

I should have noted in my earlier post here that the LLC & Mr. H. & Lady M. in particular have been most recently abased & yet, resplendently tolerant.

Which definately means i am a retread for making my earlier posit that an under-skin proximity was concerned with Capitalist Pigs versus eplaya trolls with regard to (wrt) "powers that be".

I remain, an ass!
User avatar
nipples
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:22 am

Postby Ivy » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:44 pm

I have been behaving badly in private.


As long as it's consenual between all parties involved, have at it!

missed ya, nipples.
User avatar
Ivy
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA

Postby Bob » Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:08 pm

My third-hand understanding is the Cap Pigs' very loud and aggressively confrontational act -- mainly performed by the main guy -- albeit that it was verbal rather than physical, got very old with the neighbors, esp after allegedly yelling obscenities at a 12 yr old girl. Had a flavor of the camp being evicted to save their members from assault by the neighbors, to preserve the general peace. Heard also that they might not have had as much respect for the personal space of a certain prominent Ranger as might be warranted.

I only got there during the mop-up. Pile of lumber for shade that looked like a woodrat's nest, and a couple of meek punk kids just hanging out, who'd escaped the roundup but seemed harmless and innocent enough. Shrugs all around, we did our business and left, and didn't hear about it again until we saw the email backlog. Same as with the eplaya, people were very confused on the law.

I'm not willing to say what freedoms or limits you should have on the eplaya. You're all potential psychotics.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Location: San Francisco
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh

Postby Isotopia » Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:22 pm

My thumbnail view on the Cap Pig thing...

I believe that all art is self (or collective) expression but not all self-expression is art. The Cap Pigs blew it when they tried to sell the idea that both constitute 'art.'
User avatar
Isotopia
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Postby talisen » Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:42 pm

Ah!

But is all self expression free speech? How about the reverse?
talisen
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:43 pm
Location: Becalmed in Hell

Postby Zane5100 » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:53 pm

Bob wrote:I'm not willing to say what freedoms or limits you should have on the eplaya. You're all potential psychotics.


Yep--I'm guilty.
middle-aged, wannabe-hipster, dilettante
User avatar
Zane5100
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:51 am
Location: closer than you think

But, but, but...

Postby Rob the Wop » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:14 pm

Bob wrote:I'm not willing to say what freedoms or limits you should have on the eplaya. You're all potential psychotics.


The voices in my head keep telling me I'm sane- in between that whole killing neighbors bit they do.
The other, other white meat.
User avatar
Rob the Wop
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR

We all have potential

Postby Guest » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:31 pm

Bob wrote:I'm not willing to say what freedoms or limits you should have on the eplaya. You're all potential psychotics.


potential?
Guest
 

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:18 pm

Well... who's the ideal moderator? A shrink, a cop, a Canadian- or English-born television journalist, or the voice in the wall of the spaceship?
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Location: San Francisco
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh

Postby Araceli » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:42 pm

Bob, I nominate you.

Seriously.
Araceli
 

Postby blyslv » Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:40 am

The good thing about the internet is that nobody knows you have halitosis. Now if onbly I could find that box the UN building came in.
Fight for the fifth freedom!
blyslv
 
Posts: 1562
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

freedom of speech vs. intruding on your experience

Postby Guest » Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:57 pm

One thing I like about the building of community through/around Burning Man, is that we get people with really divergent views looking at problems that occur all over the place.

From http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-p ... 7966.story (You have to subscribe)

Those flashy pop-up ads that annoy millions of Internet users each day are getting a legal test....The Federal Trade Commission accuses the students' small San Diego company of committing "high-tech extortion" by using a feature inside popular Windows software to generate pop-up ads as frequently as every 10 minutes. Ironically — and a key factor in the government's case — the students' pop-ups tout software designed to block such ads.

....the company's founders have mounted a spirited defense over whether such pop-ups are protected free speech.

Totally reminded me of some the arguments I've seen here about whether trolls are free to crap on the playa because they are teaching us about the necessity for a plonk option.

Its a beautiful world we live in... Burning Man has given me a new way of appreciating that, and I'm glad to be able to express that freely.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:37 am

Regarding the capitalist pigs...

nipples wrote:or simply do not be affected by them (Dalai Lama, anyone?) just as closely as saying you may scroll (rather than stroll) past abuse on a BBS.


I'm glad to see you back posting again Nipples, and i think we're in agreement about most of the issues in this thread, but I have to take a little issue with this about the Dalai Lama. The way I see it, people describe that guy as never being bothered, but its not that simple.

He would like to see the chinese army gone from Tibet. And its bothered him that he is in exile.

The way I see it, it isn't that he is immune to wrongs and abuse, its that he succeeds in not becoming so consumed by them that he gets frustrated into total inaction or raging incomprehensibilty or an inability to enjoy the good parts of life. But he still wants the chinese army out of Tibet, and takes action to make it happen.

I've even seen where he expressed that he wished Tibet had had an army to defend against the invasion (the book "Violence and Compassion"). He doesn't beat himself up over that lack of a defensive army, but he acknowledges that it would have been a good thing.

I think that's what the folks who care about the eplaya are trying to do. Come up with a way to defend the online community here that will prevent the worst forms of abuse.
Guest
 

Postby drowned_saved » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:32 pm

abeerinthemorning wrote:The way I see it, it isn't that he is immune to wrongs and abuse, its that he succeeds in not becoming so consumed by them that he gets frustrated into total inaction or raging incomprehensibilty or an inability to enjoy the good parts of life. But he still wants the chinese army out of Tibet, and takes action to make it happen.

what the Lama has achieved is nearly impossible to appreciate outside of its buddhist context. he pursues justice without desiring it. he can be politically engaged without suffering in the face of setbacks. he feels and appreciates the counter-vailing currents without allowing himself to be abraided by them or knocked off course.

stupid looking glasses, though. i'd love to see him in something rimless.
User avatar
drowned_saved
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:15 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby blyslv » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:03 pm

How much does he care about non-attachment?
Fight for the fifth freedom!
blyslv
 
Posts: 1562
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Fanta Se NM

Postby stuart » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:34 pm

why pursue something if you don't want it?
User avatar
stuart
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Postby Guest » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:57 pm

stuart wrote:why pursue something if you don't want it?


It's not that the Dalai Lama doesn't want to return to Tibet. That is a desire and it is real. It's just that he is not so attached to the desire that he allows that desire to overwhelm the values that he tries to live by.
In practicing Buddhism it is very important to recognize and acknowledge desires. One cannot understand oneself if one does not.
Guest
 

Postby Zane5100 » Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:03 am

Desire and attachment are not the same thing, although desire can lead to attachment, and thereby lead to suffering.
middle-aged, wannabe-hipster, dilettante
User avatar
Zane5100
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:51 am
Location: closer than you think

Postby chloe_dancer » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:57 pm

zane u r so wise!!! wink wink.. miss u all have a great holiday! :P
i feel there is an angel in me whom i am constantly shocking
User avatar
chloe_dancer
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:50 pm
Location: oakland, ca

Previous

Return to Politics & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest