The Rules of the site state that "Discussion of possible alterations to these rules is encouraged." It is in this spirit that I am making this post. What has sparked it is that I am finding that when I occasionally defend the freedom of expression, this is treated opportunistically by some to suggest that I both advocate and practice defining words arbitrarily or for no reason. I do not think I have ever defined words in this way in these forums and though I have asked several times for evidence that I have done so, it has not been forthcoming.
Also I thought it would be useful to be able to refer people to this thread when off-topic allegations about my use of words arise in other threads, in order to minimise the disruption to the fair discussion of the important topics we are exploring there - eugenics, right-wing ethical failures, capitalism, religion, authoritarianism, and left wing politics. In short, I defend people's right to use their owns words when they are posting as long as they keep within the rules. I think it highly unlikely that anyone will actually think this means they can post entire literally gibberish sentences repeatedly but if they do, fair enough, push down the troll plunger and blow up the culprit (subject to the normal checks and balances of course).
So far the only experience I have of people posting stuff that is literally gibberish is one or two very limited examples posted to try and trash my defence of freedom of expression, but these tend to blow over after a couple of replies. The forum is still functioning, anarchy has not broken out, and everyone including the perpetrators continues to post reasonably coherently. I don't think it's a problem.
However this continues to be an area which results in a lot of confusion and I would therefore like to propose that the following sentence is added to the the General Rules and Guidelines. This will reassure people that they are actually free to say what they think here. I'd be interested in other people's views on possible re-wordings of the proposal prior to formally taking soundings in the form of a poll of users.
---
6. Freedom of expression
We support the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas in these forums. We recognise that new, unusual or complex opinions may be difficult to get across; while we do not condone repeated posting of blatent gibberish, we do not take a controlling stance over the way people express their ideas. In responding to the expression of ideas that people find challenging or difficult, we suggest a guiding principle should be the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Provided people do not break other rules, they can feel free to say what they think here.
---
I should say the first sentence of this proposed amendment is almost a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I think would sit well in a forum of atheists anyway. The quote about the right to say things despite disapproval is from Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
The proposed addition is deliberately not prescriptive in giving examples of what is not acceptable. The judgement of the moderating team will still be needed in extreme cases, which I think will be very few and far between. However I believe that the addition of the clause will tip the balance more firmly in favour of freedom of expression, where at the moment the culture of the forums seems to be rather unsupportive of freedom of expression and in favour of compulsory adherence to some rather one-sided, supposed 'facts', or alternatively in my experience, the selective quoting of dictionary definitions as if that were proof that there is some rule against expressing a particular point of view.
I therefore advocate this change, but as ever am interested other people's opinions, both for and against.
Also I thought it would be useful to be able to refer people to this thread when off-topic allegations about my use of words arise in other threads, in order to minimise the disruption to the fair discussion of the important topics we are exploring there - eugenics, right-wing ethical failures, capitalism, religion, authoritarianism, and left wing politics. In short, I defend people's right to use their owns words when they are posting as long as they keep within the rules. I think it highly unlikely that anyone will actually think this means they can post entire literally gibberish sentences repeatedly but if they do, fair enough, push down the troll plunger and blow up the culprit (subject to the normal checks and balances of course).
So far the only experience I have of people posting stuff that is literally gibberish is one or two very limited examples posted to try and trash my defence of freedom of expression, but these tend to blow over after a couple of replies. The forum is still functioning, anarchy has not broken out, and everyone including the perpetrators continues to post reasonably coherently. I don't think it's a problem.
However this continues to be an area which results in a lot of confusion and I would therefore like to propose that the following sentence is added to the the General Rules and Guidelines. This will reassure people that they are actually free to say what they think here. I'd be interested in other people's views on possible re-wordings of the proposal prior to formally taking soundings in the form of a poll of users.
---
6. Freedom of expression
We support the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas in these forums. We recognise that new, unusual or complex opinions may be difficult to get across; while we do not condone repeated posting of blatent gibberish, we do not take a controlling stance over the way people express their ideas. In responding to the expression of ideas that people find challenging or difficult, we suggest a guiding principle should be the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Provided people do not break other rules, they can feel free to say what they think here.
---
I should say the first sentence of this proposed amendment is almost a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I think would sit well in a forum of atheists anyway. The quote about the right to say things despite disapproval is from Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
The proposed addition is deliberately not prescriptive in giving examples of what is not acceptable. The judgement of the moderating team will still be needed in extreme cases, which I think will be very few and far between. However I believe that the addition of the clause will tip the balance more firmly in favour of freedom of expression, where at the moment the culture of the forums seems to be rather unsupportive of freedom of expression and in favour of compulsory adherence to some rather one-sided, supposed 'facts', or alternatively in my experience, the selective quoting of dictionary definitions as if that were proof that there is some rule against expressing a particular point of view.
I therefore advocate this change, but as ever am interested other people's opinions, both for and against.
