advertising atheism on the sides of buses...good idea?

[Tiberius]

Progress!

Actually, not having anyone complain about adverts on the sides of buses would have been real progress. I'm dismayed that after all the attempts made to get the atheist adverts off, our "side" had to respond with the same attitude. None of these complaints should be viewed as good; all of them should be viewed as people who hate free speech and only tolerate their own ideas.

[Caecilian]

Progress!

Actually, not having anyone complain about adverts on the sides of buses would have been real progress. I'm dismayed that after all the attempts made to get the atheist adverts off, our "side" had to respond with the same attitude. None of these complaints should be viewed as good; all of them should be viewed as people who hate free speech and only tolerate their own ideas.

Yeah, I agree completely. Its kind of depressing that atheists are using the machinery of censorship to try to get at the theists.

Given the historical record of us atheists being censored, you'd think that the obvious conclusion for an atheist would be 'censorship is a bad thing'.

[bozo]

Progress!

Actually, not having anyone complain about adverts on the sides of buses would have been real progress. I'm dismayed that after all the attempts made to get the atheist adverts off, our "side" had to respond with the same attitude. None of these complaints should be viewed as good; all of them should be viewed as people who hate free speech and only tolerate their own ideas.

You were massively in favour...you donated ten quid.
Free speech is not allowed on this site. People are banned for saying things judged to be offensive.

[Tiberius]

You were massively in favour...you donated ten quid.

I was massively in favour of the atheist adverts, and I donated ten quid because I supported the message. I was also massively in favour of the Christian adverts. The only difference was that I didn't donate because I didn't support the message.

I even encouraged people not to complain about the Christian bus advert at the time, precisely because it promoted a double standard: http://atheistblogger.com/2009/02/07/how...us-advert/

Free speech is not allowed on this site. People are banned for saying things judged to be offensive.

Yes it is. We used to have a policy against offence, but we removed that ages ago since there was never any truly objective way of evaluating it.

Our rules are quite clear now. Anything goes in the way of discussion. You can call someone names, insult and belittle them all you like, but it doesn't look good if you do. We encourage politeness in discussions.

The only form of speech we disallow is preaching, since it accomplishes nothing and goes against the purpose of a discussion forum. We class it the same as spamming. The difference between preaching and discussing one's beliefs is very clear though.

[fr0d0]

You don't disallow bigotry and hate speak now?

[bozo]

I think that having adverts, contentious adverts, on the sides of buses is bound to attract complaints.
I further think it is " progress " that the christian ad attracted more complaints than did the atheist one, given that the uk is a supposedly christian country.
I'm glad that free speech now rules here ( didn't stop the thought police giving me a warning however! )

[Caecilian]

I just checked the forum rules, and apparently we have a rule against flaming:

3. No Flaming
Spamming people with a large number of swear words instead of making a point will result in a warning and a ban for repeat offenders. Whilst making an insulting or impolite remark in a discussion is not specifically covered by this rule, it is certainly not recommended. If you cannot present your point without insulting someone, you don't have a point worth presenting.

And also a rule against pornography:

5. No Pornography
Any pornographic content will be deleted immediately. This includes pictures, videos and links. Discussion of pornography is fine, but for legal reasons we cannot display pornographic material, even if it is hosted on another site.

Are we to assume that neither of these are still in force?

[Violet]

You don't disallow bigotry and hate speak now?

This is true... I think they should be allowed (though perhaps regulated... though I feel the social ramifications for being a hateful bigot are regulation enough)

What can I say? I don't support completely free speech Where indeed could state secrets function, if those secrets are free?

---

I just checked the forum rules, and apparently we have a rule against flaming:

3. No Flaming
Spamming people with a large number of swear words instead of making a point will result in a warning and a ban for repeat offenders. Whilst making an insulting or impolite remark in a discussion is not specifically covered by this rule, it is certainly not recommended. If you cannot present your point without insulting someone, you don't have a point worth presenting.

The bold is the problem, so far as I can see... hence it only really applies to excessive flaming (so far as I can tell).

And also a rule against pornography:

5. No Pornography
Any pornographic content will be deleted immediately. This includes pictures, videos and links. Discussion of pornography is fine, but for legal reasons we cannot display pornographic material, even if it is hosted on another site.

Are we to assume that neither of these are still in force?

Aside from these "legal reasons" (which I would assume are likely in response to "nobody of <insert age or mentality state here> may view this material"?)... i see no problem whatsoever with pornography. It seems to me (though I may be wrong of course) that it is not so much no pornography... as it is not stepping on possible legal toes.

[Tiberius]

You don't disallow bigotry and hate speak now?

We don't disallow it, as long as such speech is supported by arguments and aren't just long hate-filled rants with no discussion involved.

I just checked the forum rules, and apparently we have a rule against flaming:

And also a rule against pornography:

Are we to assume that neither of these are still in force?

The rules are in force. They are there to protect discussion, not to stifle freedom of speech. You are still free to talk about pornography, or to rant angrily about something, just as long as you have an argument behind it, or it opens up a discussion.

[LEDO]

God probably does not exist. What kind of knee-jerk statement is that? I can't imagine having so much time and money thta i would waste them both getting luke-warm atheist message on a bus. Just say it. "The church lies. How can you tell? Their lips are moving."