Where is the line between freedom of speech...

I like to think of things like this: 'you have the right to say what you want, but I have the right to ignore you or disagree with you.' Regardless of laws or 'what goes' on the internet, I think it works in most places.

Sometimes it isn't easy to ignore someone (recent events here show that) and I always try and see the other side, but ultimately I may come down to a point where I am no longer willing (for whatever reason) to participate in or listen to a conversation.

As to where the line is at this forum... my first comment goes. If you come here and say a lot of things that others disagree with in a way we are not happy with, we have the right to ignore (and block) you if we decide to. You are free to say what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's here.

The great thing about freedom of speech is that anybody can say whatever they want to say no matter how abrasive it is....

But it also allows you to reserve the right to tell them to shut the f*** up

If you come here and say a lot of things that others disagree with in a way we are not happy with, we have the right to ignore (and block) you if we decide to.

Certainly you have the right, but that does not make it right.

It seems that the line between saying alot of things you disagree with tends to overlap to much in the way you are not happy with, by extension meaning that most anything said that others disagree with(the majority) is the way you are not happy with.

Edan wrote: You are free to say what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's here.

So in other words:

"You are free to say what you want, but we are neither providing (or supporting) nor defending that freedom (on our ground). We in fact have sensibilities that we place above your freedom and we will rid ourselves of you if you shall cross them."

So what don't you call freedom then? Where would you draw the line? I do understand the sentiment, it's just the phrasing I'm having trouble with. If being generally and genuinely in opposition to a majority is one criterion and the other one is that majority's happiness, then what exactly can not be justified?

Yes, you might argue, but this is a private and not a public space and we have the right to do with our land as we please. That is fair, I would say, yet this is a public forum and there are plenty of private ones, even around topics that are nowhere near as personal as the ones occasionally discussed here. On the other hand I could also say that even supposing that this was an isolated place, would a place under majority rule even be a good place to come to or to stay at? Would that be a healthy design for a community?

Thoughts?

Ok... two people to respond to... bear with me..

Gisteron wrote:

So what don't you call freedom then? Where would you draw the line? I do understand the sentiment, it's just the phrasing I'm having trouble with. If being generally and genuinely in opposition to a majority is one criterion and the other one is that majority's happiness, then what exactly can not be justified?

Yes, you might argue, but this is a private and not a public space and we have the right to do with our land as we please. That is fair, I would say, yet this is a public forum and there are plenty of private ones, even around topics that are nowhere near as personal as the ones occasionally discussed here. On the other hand I could also say that even supposing that this was an isolated place, would a place under majority rule even be a good place to come to or to stay at? Would that be a healthy design for a community?

The thing is there is no line... the line is a grey space in which sits our expectations of others and what we are willing to accept. My phrasing is not so great, but that's because freedom and our expectation of it is so vague..

Freedom comes with responsibility for how we act.. we don't have to act nice or be reasonable, but it helps to lubricate conversation and understanding. I may completely disagree with everything you say (hypothetically) but I don't have to attack you, that doesn't help.

Majority rule is generally how assemblies of people work... with regards to the voices of the minority as well. When we make decisions about what happens to members we have to take in all the facts, not just the loudest voices or the greatest numbers.

Khaos wrote:

Certainly you have the right, but that does not make it right.

It seems that the line between saying alot of things you disagree with tends to overlap to much in the way you are not happy with, by extension meaning that most anything said that others disagree with(the majority) is the way you are not happy with

Once again, my phrasing was poor, but my thoughts are the same as to Gisteron. When a conversation becomes stunted because of personal attack then it is no longer useful or productive. This doesn't mean we should block someone, hells no, but it's when it pushes beyond conversation that perhaps it starts to become a problem.

Just because I dislike how someones is acting doesn't mean we should block them...that's why the council discusses it.. have to consider all sides...

And asking what is right is a lot like asking what is freedom....

Gisteron wrote:

Edan wrote: You are free to say what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's here.

So in other words:

"You are free to say what you want, but we are neither providing (or supporting) nor defending that freedom (on our ground). We in fact have sensibilities that we place above your freedom and we will rid ourselves of you if you shall cross them."

So what don't you call freedom then? Where would you draw the line? I do understand the sentiment, it's just the phrasing I'm having trouble with. If being generally and genuinely in opposition to a majority is one criterion and the other one is that majority's happiness, then what exactly can not be justified?

Yes, you might argue, but this is a private and not a public space and we have the right to do with our land as we please. That is fair, I would say, yet this is a public forum and there are plenty of private ones, even around topics that are nowhere near as personal as the ones occasionally discussed here. On the other hand I could also say that even supposing that this was an isolated place, would a place under majority rule even be a good place to come to or to stay at? Would that be a healthy design for a community?

Thoughts?

We would defend the right for anyone to say anything they choose...

The problem comes when we (TOTJO collectively) exercises our freedom to respond as we see fit...

Say what you like, and we will respond as we like...

If fear of removal from the site bothers a person, then they have the freedom to alter their words to insure our response is of a nature they desire...

Its give in take, or

Ricky the Grey wrote: ITS ABOUT THE YNIG-YANG BABY!!

lol...

Certainly you have the right, but that does not make it right.

It seems that the line between saying alot of things you disagree with tends to overlap to much in the way you are not happy with, by extension meaning that most anything said that others disagree with(the majority) is the way you are not happy with

Acting rude is not right either...

We dont mind 'saying a lot of things'...

It is how they are said...

When you and I first met, we PMed until we had some kind of understanding...

And the same for most folks who really want to post, and have a unique way about them, lol...

I can name a few...

I am only "right" by this communities standards... And I dont necessarily agree with everything, but I will enforce it becasue that is what the majority want...

And, I agree with the majority of things here, so my few differences are ok for me...

You will never find a 100% agreeable place...

To be honest, that second paragraph is not going down well... wut?

This is a religious temple and training institution. If your presence is not to participate in our religion, or to train with us, you are a guest. If you are a discourteous guest, you will be shown the door.

Think of it like a visit to a Hindu Mandir. You might love your shoes. You might be a shoe manufacturer, or a leading shoe historian who feels shoes are of vital importance to human civilisation. At the door, you are asked to remove your shoes. You can decline, wander in anyway... but you may be turned around by those who use the temple, or those who run the temple. Every step in your wonderful shoes might put another person in front of you, each one asking you to return to the entrance and come in again in the proper manner. You may think it's ridiculous, ludicrous, a complete travesty. You might feel people are missing out on your wonderful insights, the brilliance of your intellect over a matter you feel is idiotic and beneath you. You might assert that everyone in the temple who cares about taking off one's shoes is closed-minded, foolish, and ignorant. You might even begin to feel you are being victimised, bullied or marginalised.

But the reality is you're very welcome. All you're being asked to do is to take off your shoes.

tzb wrote: This is a religious temple and training institution. If your presence is not to participate in our religion, or to train with us, you are a guest. If you are a discourteous guest, you will be shown the door.

Think of it like a visit to a Hindu Mandir. You might love your shoes. You might be a shoe manufacturer, or a leading shoe historian who feels shoes are of vital importance to human civilisation. At the door, you are asked to remove your shoes. You can decline, wander in anyway... but you may be turned around by those who use the temple, or those who run the temple. Every step in your wonderful shoes might put another person in front of you, each one asking you to return to the entrance and come in again in the proper manner. You may think it's ridiculous, ludicrous, a complete travesty. You might feel people are missing out on your wonderful insights, the brilliance of your intellect over a matter you feel is idiotic and beneath you. You might assert that everyone in the temple who cares about taking off one's shoes is closed-minded, foolish, and ignorant. You might even begin to feel you are being victimised, bullied or marginalised.

But the reality is you're very welcome. All you're being asked to do is to take off your shoes.

We need a Gold Star button.

Br. John wrote:

tzb wrote: This is a religious temple and training institution. If your presence is not to participate in our religion, or to train with us, you are a guest. If you are a discourteous guest, you will be shown the door.

Think of it like a visit to a Hindu Mandir. You might love your shoes. You might be a shoe manufacturer, or a leading shoe historian who feels shoes are of vital importance to human civilisation. At the door, you are asked to remove your shoes. You can decline, wander in anyway... but you may be turned around by those who use the temple, or those who run the temple. Every step in your wonderful shoes might put another person in front of you, each one asking you to return to the entrance and come in again in the proper manner. You may think it's ridiculous, ludicrous, a complete travesty. You might feel people are missing out on your wonderful insights, the brilliance of your intellect over a matter you feel is idiotic and beneath you. You might assert that everyone in the temple who cares about taking off one's shoes is closed-minded, foolish, and ignorant. You might even begin to feel you are being victimised, bullied or marginalised.

But the reality is you're very welcome. All you're being asked to do is to take off your shoes.

We need a Gold Star button.

Or two...

This is a religious temple and training institution. If your presence is not to participate in our religion, or to train with us, you are a guest. If you are a discourteous guest, you will be shown the door.

As opposed to a discourteous member?

So, does membership allow more rights to be a douche?

As for participation, well, what do you mean by that? Would not any form of interaction within the halls and subject matter fall under that?

Given that the line for banning is also subjective, and always shifting, well that is a slippery slope is it not?

Training? Well, again, whats that entail exactly, given the subjective refuge you have here you do not clarify anything with these statements, more you hang yourselves with previous ones.