|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > July 2002 > Censorship?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-20, 8:00 pm |
| Apparantly there is now a rule in place that prohibits politically oriented threads in the General Discussion Forum. A new thread named "The Real Map" was shut down after 1 post. I find this odd since other politically oriented threads have not met this same fate. As an example, I cite the thread entitled "Should the US Invade Iraq". I am not complaining about this particular thread being shut down. I am bothered by the inconsistency. If there is a ban on political content in the General Discussion Forum, it should be applied universally and not on the basis of whether the powers that be agree or disagree with the content. | |
| jetstreamp 2002-07-20, 8:15 pm |
| If this is true it is Communism at is worst form. | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-20, 8:20 pm |
| If political themes are not permitted, that is fine with me. If this is not the case, however, then I will defend the right of anyone to post their viewpoint, even if I disagree with that viewpoint. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
If political themes are not permitted, that is fine with me. If this is not the case, however, then I will defend the right of anyone to post their viewpoint, even if I disagree with that viewpoint.
I agree with what Ranger said. Unless it phyisicaly harms you. Just don't read it, if you don't like it. | |
| Boulware5 2002-07-20, 11:18 pm |
| Ranger is 100% right.
Just say no to censorship... | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-21, 4:53 am |
| That thread that got shut down - rightfully so - it consisted of a link without comment to a propaganda site. In my opinion, the best way to discuss politics is the ways that political events and policies affect I.T. That's really rather a large area for discussion and I'm sure that if Iraq gets invaded for example, there would be repercussions of various kinds. Why should there be inconsistency? In a court of law by illustration, certain people found guilty others not - nothing inconsistent about that. It seems to me that you are looking for justifications. The whole problem with your proposal is that it is simply incorrect. | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-21, 6:43 am |
| I feel there is a difference in the threads 'the real map' and 'should US invade Iraq '. As the thread starter for the Iraqi post, I just posed the question and threw it out there for discussion. As for 'the real map,' it was a little impersonal just to post a link and not even post a comment with it. This I have no problem with, but I would have a problem if half the posts in here just had a link to say a political party, marykaye or some cause or other.
You are right Tech, in that the Webmasters comment was "You are on the wrong website, political site is down the corridor, room 81"
would qualify the Iraq post to be shut down also.
This is an inconsistency, and seeing as it is the Webmasters site he can shut down any post arbitrarily. I will just post my political stuff in room 81. Id rather talk about Arsenal anywy. | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-21, 3:21 pm |
| I found out that the thread was shut down because I tried to reply to it. My reply was going to be negative. The link was 3 years old, and I felt it didn't relate appropriately to today's events. A lot has happened since that web page was constructed. Nonetheless, I point this out to emphasise that I am not defending the content. There is nothing wrong with the Webmaster prohibiting political discussion. It is his website. My problem is that I have not observed any such prohibition. I see a prohibition against that particular thread. I recently engaged in a debate with a member from Iran. He holds points of view quite different from my own. I would be angry beyond my ability to put into words if anyone in power at this site were to shut him down. It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. It is a matter having a consistent policy. Anything else smells of blatant, indefensible censorship. | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-21, 3:42 pm |
| Even if it is blatant, indefensible censorship I don't really see that the webmaster has to defend anything in this regard. You pretty much say the same thing when you say that it his site so in a way you are giving out mixed messages. If you're that concerned about it - which I am not - then e-mail the webmaster maybe. | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-21, 3:49 pm |
| It is indefensible (if it's censorship) because we all should be playing by the same rules here. I will be more than happy to oblige as long as I know what the rules are. The reason I expressed my opinion publicly is that I believe that this question impacts upon all of us. This is a matter, in my opinion (if I'm allowed to have one), which should be discussed openly. | |
| Webmaster 2002-07-21, 3:53 pm |
| Tech Ranger, I had no idea you were goin to reply to that thread.
I only closed it because such thread, especially those that talk about Israely-Palestinian conflict tend to get out of hand and turn into personal attackes and name callings.
I just decided to pre-emptevily close this thread before things get ugly.
It's not about cencorship at all.
If you still want to discuss policits and solve middle east problems in our forum, go ahead, I will not close any more such threads. |
|
|
|
|