(June 18, 2018 at 10:57 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't like the growing number of rules which seem to be devoted to restricting content, like this one. I recognize there are things and situations it is desirable to avoid, but sometimes the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit. I can't help but see such rules as discouraging people from expressing ideas and opinions, and ultimately having a chilling effect on people's feeling of freedom, if not the actual fact of such. I realize this is a private forum, so freedom of speech is a privilege rather than a right, but I've always been an ally of the presentiment that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less. Yes, there may be dangers, but perhaps it's better to allow the occasional kerfluffle or situation occur and deal with it that way, rather than proactively making rules about content. If there are legal considerations in play here that I'm unaware of, that might be a factor. But even if there are, I think the liability, if such exists, would largely be ameliorated by the infrequent occurrence of whatever lurking danger this rule is meant to prevent, as well as the practical likelihood of actual legal consequences following any problematic episode.
I don't know all the reasons behind this rule, and the rule against discussion of pedophilia, but needless to say, I find them a discouraging development.
We don’t like implementing rules that restrict content unless we have to. In this case, there were some comments which were borderline, the staff agreed that such comments should be unacceptable, and therefore needed a rule.
